The Arguments of Romanists from the Infallibility of the Church and the Testimony of the Fathers in Behalf of the Apocrypha

Letter I

Severity of rebuke necessary in reproving error. — Mistaken notions of charity exposed. — The reaK character of Popery — shown to be Anti-Christian and dangerous — no bet- tor than Mahometanism. — The decree of the Council of Trent in reference to the Apocrypha, 9

Letter II

Dr. Lynch'a great argument in proof of the inspiration of the Apocrypha shown to be ambiguous. — The testimony of the Papacy, on moral grounds, entitled to no consid- eration, 36

Letter III

Examination of the argument from the necessity of the case in favor of some infallible

tribunal, shown to be presumptuous and weak, 36

Letter IV

It is just as easy to prove the Inspiration of the Scriptures as the Infallibility of any

Church, 57

Letter V

Historical difBculties in the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, 79

Letter VI

The doctrine of Papal Infallibility the Parent of Skepticism, 89

Letter VII

Papal Infallibility shown to be conducive to licentiousness and immorality, 105

Letter VIII

Papal Infallibility proved to be the patron of Superstition and Will-worship, 116

Letter IX

Papal Infallibility proved to be unfriendly to civil government, 143

Letter X

Apocrypha not quoted in the New Testament, 162

Letter XI

Exclusion of the Apocrypha from the Jewish canon. — Definition of the term canon ; account of the manner in which it was formed. — The evidence necessary to make a book canonical. — The distinction between not receiving and rejecting a book shown to be false 175

Letter XII

Our Saviour approved the Jewish canon and treated it as complete. Sadducoes vindi- cated from tlie charge of rejecting all the Old Testament but the Pentateuch. The real point which Papists must prove, in order to establish the inspiration of the Apocrypha, 1 89

8 CONTENTS.

PAGE

Letter XIII

Rejection of the Apocrypha by the Jews. — Faith of the Primitive Church not a standard

to us, 205

Letter XIV ♦

The existence of the Apocrypha in ancient versions of the Scriptures, no proof of inspi- ration.— Not quoted by the Apostolic Fathers, 215

Letter XV

The application of such expressions as ' Scripture,' ' Divine Scripture,' by ancient

writers to the Apocrypha, no proof of inspiration, 231

Letter XVI

Examination of Testimonies, 246

LETTER XVn. Testimony of the writers of the third century considered — Cyprian, Hippolytus, Apos- tolic Constitutions, 266

Letter XVII T

Testimony of the Fourth Century considered. — Council of Nice. — Councils of Hippo and Carthage. — Testimony of Augustine— Ephrem the Syrian — Basil — Chrysostom — Ambrose, 277

Letter XIX

The real Testimony of the Primitive Church.— The Canons of Mclito, Oiigen, Athan-

asius, Hilary, Cyril, Gregory Naz., Jerome, Ruflinus, Council of Laodicea 310

Appendix, • 339

EOMAXIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED.

Letter I

Severity of rebuke necessary in reproving error. — Mistaken notions of charity exposed. — The real character of Popery — shown to be Anti-Christian and dangerous — no better than Ma- bometanism. — The decree of the Council of Trent in reference to the Apocrypha.

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 strictures. But you have chosen the form of a personal address; and though the rules of courtesy do not require that anonymous 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 phi- losopher 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 " capi- tal advantage of an enlightened people, the liberty of discussing every subject which can fall within the compass of the human mind," (a liberty, as you well 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 own, I too might take offence at the asperity of temper which you have, indeed, attempted to conceal by a veil of affected polite- ness, but which, in spite of your caution, has more than once

'2

10 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

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 Pa- pists among us should make such violent pretensions to fastidi- ousness 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, vulgarity, 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 met- aphorical 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 re- duced 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 towards the adherents of the Papal communion, into serious evils which often required you " to draw on your patience," is to me a matter of profound astonishment. * Standing as you do

* " Permit me to take this occasion of expressing once for all my regret at finding an essay from you so plentifully interspersed with the vulgar epithets. Papist^ Eomanist, and such manifestations of ill feeling as the expressions, ras- sals of Eome, and captives to the car of Borne, the assertion that our " credu- lity is enormous," and your mocking language concerning the awful mystery of transubstantiation, and the Church with which even in quotations I am unwil- ling to sully my pen. Believe me, reverend sir, such invectives contain no argument. They are unbecoming the subject, and I may presume to add, the dignified station you occupy. Your essay would have lost none of its weight, and to Catholics would have been infinitely less revolting, had they been omitted. Catholics are neither outcasts from society, nor devoid of feeling ; they are nei- ther insensible to, nor think they deserve, such words of opprobrium. It is true we have often to draw on our patience, for the rules of courtesy are frequently violated in our regard. Still it is painful to see a Professor descending from calm, gentlemanly and enlightened argument, to mingle with the crowd of those whose weapons are misrepresentations and abuse. I will not recur to this disagreeable topic, but will endeavor to write as if your arguments were unac- companied by what Catholics must consider as insults."— J, P. f. Letter T.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 11

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 cryino- 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, those who had pur- sued them with unrelenting fury at home, should have been found among their descendants, whining in deceitful strains about charity and politeness? They who, in every country where their pretended spiritual dominion has been supported by the props of secular authority, have robbed, murdered and plun- dered 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 Manio-ault must always be remembered, to make the formal declaration that ^^ Catholics (meaning Papists) are not devoid of feeling?" Were you afraid that the delight which you formerly took in sun- dering 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 renounced your reason and surrendered the exercise of private judgment, might otherwise have created a shrewd suspi- cion 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 en- deavor to treat you in the course of this controversy 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 were harmless and venial mistakes — to bless where God curses.

12 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

and to make apologies where God requires us to hate, though it may be the aptest method of securing popular applause 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 defend, but betray the citadel 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 calculators, that a gene- rous zeal is likely to be denounced as bigotry, a holy fervency of style mistaken for the inspiration of malice, and the dreary indifference of Pyrrhonism confounded with true liberality. — Such men would have condemned Paul for his withering rebuke to Elymas the Sorcerer, and Jesus Christ for his stern denuncia- tions of the Scribes and Pharisees. Surely if there be any sub- ject which requires pungency of language and severity of rebuke, it is the " uncasing of a grand imposture ;" if there be any pro-

* " We all know," says Milton, in a passage which I shall partially quote, ** that in private or personal injuries, yea, in public suffering 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 pro- voked ; 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 dis- agreeing 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 unauthorized 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 re- sisted sound doctrine and by subtle dissimulations corrupted the minds of men, have wrought up their zealous souls into such vehemencies as n9thing could be more killingly spoken.^' — Animadversions upon the Demonst. B^ef. Fref.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED.

13

per object of indignation and scorn, " it is a false prophet taken in the greatest, dearest, and most dangerous cheat — the cheat of

souls."

If I know my own heart, I am so far from entertaining vin- dictive 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 hospi- talities 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 re- garded as a Church of God at all in any just or 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 sacraments, and by a mystic power of sacerdotal enchantment pretends to bestow the invisible grace — which, instead of the ministry of reconciliation, whose busi- ness 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 worship that constitutes the glory of the Christian Church, daz- zles 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, fabricated by the father of lies." Like the " huge and monstrous Wen" of which ancient story * tells us, that claimed a seat, in the council of the body next to the head iiself, the constitution of the Papacy is an enormous

* See the story told in Milton, Refomi. in Eng. b. ii.

14 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

excrescence which 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 unclean- ness — a foul disfigurement and burden." The Christian world was justly indignant with the fraternal address which English 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 treacher- ous betrayal of the cause of truth. What claims have Roman Catholics to be regarded as Christians, which may not be pleaded with equal propriety in behalf of the Mahometans? Is it that Rome professes to receive the word of God as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments 1 The false Prophet of Arabia makes the same pretension. Assisted in the composi- tion of the Koran by an apostate Jew and a renegado Christian, he has given a lodgment to almost every heresy which had in- fected 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 Mahometans has no countenance from Scripture. It is on the ground that 3Iahomet makes void the word of God by his pre- tended 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 tra- ditions? Her 7'eal creed — that which gives form and body to the system — 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 contradicts every distinctive principle of the glorious Gospel of God's grace. If Mahometans justify the heterogeneous addi- tions of their Prophet to the acknowledged revelation of Heaven, by pretending that the Bible is imperfect, and consequently, inade- quate as a rule of faith and practice, how much better is the con- duct of Rome in reference to the same matter? She may not assume with Mahomet that the Scriptures have been corrupted, but she does assume that the Scriptures are not what God de- clares that they are — able not only to make us wise unto salvation,

See Leslie's Socinian Controversy. For the authenticity of this address see Horsely's Tracts in controversy with Dr. Priestly.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 15

but to make *' the man of God perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work."* Again, Rome's bulwark is tradition. Ma- homet, 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 teach- ing, the Arabian impostor and the Roman harlot stand on sim- ilar ground. The doctrines of the Koran are announced with no other evidence than the avxoi; icfi] 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 Mahomet 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."

Mahometanism and Popery are, in truth, successive evolutions in a great and comprehensive plan of darkness, conceived by a master mind for the purpose 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 extra- ordinary zeal, the simple institutions of the Gospel were gradu- ally undermined — errors, one by one, were imperceptibly intro- duced— the circle of darkness continued daily to extend, until, in an age of profound slumber, 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 ruinsof Christianity in the bounds of the Roman See, and requir- ing, as it did, the corruptions of ages to prepare, cement, and

*• 2 Tim. 3. 17.

16 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

consolidate its parts, owes its compactness of form and harmoni- ous 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 Mahometanism 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 religion — 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 Baby- lonish merchant of souls. But I wish it to be distinctly under- stood that my most unsparing denunciations of doctrines and practices which seem to me to lead directly to the gates of death, are not to be construed into dipersonal 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 my part, and " with which even in quotations 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

* The doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin is supposed to be derived from the Koran. See Gibbon, p. 310, vol. vi.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 17

applying to you a term, or as you choose to call it, a "vulgar epithet," which exactly describes a characteristic principle of your sect ?

Then again, as to the phrases *' vassals of Rome," and *' cap- tives 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 expressed. You must be aware, sir, or you would hardly venture 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 valor, and was far from conveying a reproachful meaning. ** The word," says Richardson, ** is, indeed, evidently as much a term of honor as knighthood was." It is certainly a softer term than slave, which, according to Cicero's definition of servi- tude— " obedientia fracti animi et abjecti 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 unpalatable 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 transubstantiation," I am not yet persuaded that there is any other mystery in this huge ab- surdity, but "the mystery of iniquity." To you, sir, it may be aioful — so no doubt were calves and apes to their Egyptian wor- shippers.

I. Your letters contain, or profess to contain, an explanation of what the Council of Trent actually did in regard to the Canon of Scripture — a vindication of its conduct, and a labored reply to my short arguments against the inspiration of the Apocrypha. In other words, they naturally divide themselves into three parts — a statement, the proof, and refutation — of each in its order.

In your statement of what the Council did, you have given us a definition of the word Canont which, as it adequately repre-

* Cicero ParadoxoUjV. i.

t " A Canon I have always understood to be a list or catalogue, setting

2*

18 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

sents neither ancient nor modern usage — the term not being, as you seem to imply, univocal — may be regarded as an humbling confession of your own ignorance. If, sir, you " have always understood the word " in the sense which you assign to it, your acquaintance wnth the early Ecclesiastical writers is so manifestly limited as to create a very strong suspicion that, with all your parade of learning, you have been little more than the ferret and mouse-hunt of an index. As I shall have occasion, in an- other part of this discussion, to revert to this subject again, it will be sufficient for my present purpose 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 authoritative as a rule of faith. The common metaphorical meaning of the Greek word huvmv is a rule or measure. In this sense it is used by the classical writers of antiquity,* as well as by the great Apostle of the Gentiles. t Whether found in a catalogue or not, if the inspiration of a book can be adequately determined, it possesses, at once, canoni- cal authority. It becomes, as far as it goes, a standard of faith. And with all due deference, sir, to your superior facili- ties for understanding aright the decisions of your Church, you will permit 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 which I have indicated, and made these books an authoritative rule of faith^ or was guilty of a degree of folly, which, with all my contempt 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, whatever be its origin, is to be received as canonical until it is inserted in some existing

forth what books are inspired, not giving or dispensing inspiration to unin- spired books. A work to be entitled to a place in a Canon, must be believed to have been always inspired ; and if believed to have been inspired at any one period, it must be believed to have always been inspired. Until a Canon is formed, a catalogue of inspired books drawn up, manifestly though many works may be sacred because inspired, none can be canonical, because none can be inserted in a catalogue which does not yet exist." — Letter I.

* Aristotle Polit. lib. ii. cap. 8. Eurip. Hec. 602.

t Gal. 6. 16. Phil. 3. 16.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 19

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 hooks as inspired, but also on him who does not believe that they are found in a cata- logue. He is as much bound, on pain of what you interpret to be excommunication, 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 !"

Now, sir, to borrow an illustration from your favorite quar- ter— 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 un- common thing among you, be profoundly ignorant that such a book as the Bible exists at all, would he be danmed? To say nothing of his not receiving the Scriptures under such circum- stances as sacred, he most assuredly does not receive them as canonical in your sense. He knows nothing of a list or cata- logue 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 evidently a sheer mpossibility except to a man who was stark mad. To know that a catalogue is composed of certain books, and this is the only way of know- ing it as a catalogue, and yet not to believe that the books are in it, is a mental contradiction which can only be received by those whose capacious understandings can digest the mystery of transubstantiation.

* " 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 knowingly and industriously contemn the aforesaid traditions : let him be anathema." —

Letter I 20 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

According to your statement, the venerable Fathers assem- bled 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, however, the Holy Fa- thers declared what books they received as sacred and authorita- tive in matters of faith, and pronounced their curse upon those who did not acknowledge the same rule with themselves. I shall quote from the decree itself, in your own beautiful and accurate 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 catcdogue is not cajiona, but indicem. Again, sir, as the Fathers are said to receive these books before their own list is made, how did they do it? — Evi- dently 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 sacred and canonical. But the preced- ing part of the decree contains not a word about the existence of former catalogues , though it is particular to insert the inspi- ration of these books as well as of tradition as the ground of their reception, maintaining, 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 oi faith."

After this specimen of your skill in the art of definitions, we are not to be astonished at still more marvellous achieve- ments in the way of translation. The following words, clear and explicit in themselves, " pari pietatis aifectu ac reverentia suscipit et veneratur," I find are rendered by you in English, hardly less equivocal than the language of an ancient oracle.*

* " Receives with due piety and reverence and venerates." The same blun- der is found in the translation of this decree prefixed to the Doway version of the Scriptures.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 21

Sir, to say nothing of the obvious meaning of the words, as it might be gathered from a Lexicon, if you had read the debates of the Council even in your own Jesuit historian, Pallavicino*

* " Deinde quo res per futuram Sessionem statuendae discutiuntur, idem Legatus exposuit : Optimum sibi facta videri, ut primo loco recenserentur ac reci- perentur libri Canonici sacrarum Literarum, quo certo constaret, gMzius armis esset in haereticos dimicandum, et in qua basifundanda esset Fides Catholi- coruni ; quorum aliqui superare misere angebantur, cum cernerent in eodem libro a plurimis Spiritus digitum adorari, alios contra digitum impostoris execrari. Hoc statuto tria in peculiaribus coetibus proposita sunt. Primum, an omnia utriusque testamenti volumina essent comprobanda. Alterum, an ea compro- batio per novum examen peragenda : tertium a Bertano ac Seripando proposi- tum, an expediret sacros libros in duas classes partiri : alteram eorum quae ad promovendam populi pietatem pertinent, et illius ergo solum ab Ecclesia re- cepti tamquam boni, cujusmodi videbantur esse Proverbiorum et Sapientiae libri, nondum ab Ecclesia probati tamquam Canonici, tametsifrequens eorum mentio haberetur facta apud Hieronymum et Augustinum, aliosque veteres auctores; alteram eorum, quibus etiam fidei dogmata inniluntur. Sed ea divisio, tametsi ab aliquo auctore prius facta, et tunc a Seripando promota per libellum eruditissi- mum ea gratia conscriptum, quo cuncti libri Canonici rite experentur, uti reve- ra firmam rationem non praeferebat, ita nee sua specie Patres allexit, vix nacta laudatorem : quare nihil ultra de ilia disputabimus." Pallavicino, Hist. Cone. Trident, lib. vi. cap. 11.

" How the business to be transacted by the approaching session should be dis- cussed, was explained by the same legate. It seemed to him most advisable that the canonical books of the Holy Scriptures should be in the first place enumer- ated and received, so that it might be certainly understood, with what weapons they were to fight the heretics, and on what basis the Catholic faith should be founded. In regard to this matter, some were miserably perplexed, since they perceived that, in the same book, many adored the hand of the Spirit, while others detected the hand of an impostor. Three propositions were before the com- mittees: 1. Whether all the books of each Testament should be approved. 2. Whether the approbation should be given upon a new examination to be gone through. 3. The third proposition was that of Bertan and Seripand, whether it would be better to distribute the sacred books into two classes, the first em- bracing those that were received by the church on account of their subserviency to the piety of the people, (of which sort were Proverbs and Wisdom,) but which were not allowed to be inserted in the canon, though frequently mentioned by Jerome, Augustine, and other ancient writers. The other class embracing those upon which the doctrines of the faith depend. This division, however, into two classes, though it had been previously made by a certain autlior, and was then learnedly promoted by Seripand in a work written with the view of setting all the books of the canon in their proper light, was supported by no good reason, and found so little favor that it obtained scarcely a single vote."

22 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

you would have learned, what you seem not now to know, 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 with the book which the Lutherans acknowledged as inspired. — Their object was to give their canon or rule of faith. Determined as the Pope and his legates were to suppress the Reformation, which had then been successfully begun, and to perpetuate 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 anath- ema, 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. 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 convicted of error, a stronger bulwark must needs be raised to protect the abuses and cover the corruptions of ihe Church of Rome. You can- not 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

* " Some thought fit to establish three ranks. The first, of those which 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 num- ber are the six Epistles, and the Apocalypse of" the New Testament, 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 say- ing 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 Laodicians, nor by those of Carthage, nor by the Pope, and therefore should 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, esteeming this a potent reason, resolved that it was, by the ancients, accounted a part of Jeremy and comprised with him." — Father Faul, pp. 142, 143.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 23

the Church of God had never received as the work of the Holy Ghost. But, sir, without the Apocrypha and unwritten tradi- tion, the Holy Fathers were unable to construct an embankment sufficient to roll back the cleansing tide of life which Luther was endeavoring to pour into the Augean stable of Papal impu- rity 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 Scrip- ture, 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 veneration, as the decree itself asserts. This, sir, is what Trent did — and until it can be shown that all these elements of Papal faith are really entitled to the same degree of authority and esteem — that they are all, in other words, equally inspired — my charge of intolerable arrogance remains unanvswered against the Church of Rome. I said, and repeat the accusation, that she made that divine, which is notoriously human, and that inspired, which, in the sense of the Apostle, is notoriously of private interpre- tation.'' 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 declared ** thus saith the Lord," when the Lord had neither spoken nor sent them. The insulted nations, heart-sick with abuses, were looking, with the anxiety of a dying man, for the sovereign rem- edy which it was confidently hoped would be prepared and administered by this long-looked for assembly of spiritual physi- cians ; 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 — behold ! 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 infatuation had at length arrived, proceeded, with the daring desperation of men bereft of shame and abandoned of God, to collect the accumu-

24 ROMANIST ARGUiMENTS FOR THE

lated errors of ages into one enormous pile, and to send forth, as if from the " boiling alembic of hell," the blackening vapors of death to obscure the dawning 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 to represent the universal Church 1 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

* When we call to mind the arts and subterfuges by which the Court of Rome endeavored to evade the necessity of calling a Council — its long delays, while gi'oaning Europe was clamoring for reform — its wily manoeuvres, when the necessity at last became inevitable, to have the Council under its own con- trol— the crafty policy by which it succeeded — when we look at these things, and whoever has read the History of Europe during that period cannot be Ignorant of them — the language of the text " cannot be deemed too severe." The Council was evidently a mere tool of the Pope. 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 learning of the body.

" But whichever of these authors," says Robertson, referring to the histo- ries of Father Paul, Palla\'icino and Vargas, " whichever of these 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 conniption among others ; he must observe such a large infusion of human policy and passions, mingled with such a scanty portion of that simplicity in 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 h'm, that he will find it no easy matter to believe that an extraordinary influence of the Holy Ghost hovered over this assembly and dictated its decrees." — Charles V. vol. iii. b. x. p. 400.

" Neither was there amongst those Prelates any one remarkable for learn- ing : some of them were lawyers, perhaps learned in that profession, but of lit- tle 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 Chris- tendom was represented. But particularly of Germany there was not so much as one Bishop or divine." — Father Paul, p. 153.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 25

proof" that it was given up to " hardness of heart and reprobacy of mind." You have favored 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 censures 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 appeal to facts. Cajetan was reputed to be the most eminent 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 authenticity of the Vulgate was under 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 Hehreiv 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 thad made it authentic in tongues which you could not read ? So much for the learning of these venerable men.

II. Having sufficiently shown that your statement is a series of blunders, and your eulogy on the Council wholly unfounded, l pro- ceed to your proof. The point which you propose to establish is, that the Apocrypha were given by inspiration of God. You un- dertake 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 argument, 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 in- volved in inextricable confusion, and that the only asylum for the

* Page 145. t Father Paul, page 146.

S6 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

doubting and distressed — -the only place in which the truth can be found and perplexities resolved, is the bosom of your own com- munion. In your zeal, sir, to represent Protestants as without any solid foundations for their faith, it would be well to confine your- self to statements better supported than some that you have made. That the Sadducees, 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 regard for the Fathers, Basnage* has been compelled to soften down the proposition into the milder statement that this skeptical sect only attributed greater author- ity to the writings of Moses than to the rest of the canon. If by the Alhigenses 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 per- ished. You cannot be ignorant, however, that Protestant divines have constructed a strong argument from the very nature of their oriorin, to rebut the assertion which you have ventured to assume as true. Really, sir, when I consider your wonderful ability in giving definitions and translating from Latin, and join to these your profound acquaintance with ecclesiastical antiquity, I may well tremble to encounter so formidable an opponent in the field of Dialectics. Upon this arena we are now to meet.

Letter 11

Dr. Lynch's great argument in proof of the inspiration of the Apocrypha shown to be am- biguous.— The testimony of the Papacy, on moral grounds, entitled to no consideration.

I COME now, sir, to the examination of your argument for the inspiration of the Apocrypha, as well as of all the other books

* Basnage Histoire des Juifs, torn. ii. pt. i. p. 325. — Brucker Crit. Hist. Phil. torn. ii. p. 721. See particularly Eichhom who has clearly shown that the charge is unfounded. Einleit. 4th Edit. vol. i. p. 136.

AFOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 27

which you profess to receive as sacred and canonical. It is really a curious specimen of dialectic skill. I know of nothing fit to be compared with it in point of originality and power, but the famous oration of the Bishop of Bitonto, on opening the ven- erable Council of Trent, in which he predicted the most glori- ous results from a series of puns on the names and surnames of the presiding Cardinals,* or that still more remarkable specimen of ingenuity and acuteness by which your angelic doctor and eagle of divines so triumphantly proves that it is the duty of in- feriors to submit to their superiors in the Church from the very pertinent and conclusive passage, " the oxen were ploughing and the asses feeding beside them." No doubt your ambition is excited to rival these departed worthies of your sect ; to achieve for yourself a name which posterity shall not willingly let die; to become, in process of time, and your efforts give every promise of being crowned with success,

" A second Thomas, or at once. To name them all, another Dunce."

In appreciating the force and importance of your argument, it will be necessary to bear distinctly in mind that the conclusion which you aim to establish is not to be probably true, but infal- libly certain. You require of those who undertake to determine for themselves what books have been given by inspiration of God, to decide this matter with absolute certainty, or to renounce the exercise of their private judgments. In proposing, therefore, a

* " We enter upon and commence this General Council lawfully assembled, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, by the sanction of the Apostolic See, and under the direction of these prelates, who stand conspicuous in this holy com- pany— a new Jerusalem, viz. .Tohanne Maria de Monte, whose looks and af- fections are continually directed upward to the mountain (montem) which is Christ, whence comes our strength. Marcello Politino, who formerly directed the efforts of his profound and impartial mind to the support of the Christian Commonwealth (politiae), whose corrupt morals have afforded our enemies an opportunity to attack us. Reginald Pole, more resembling an angel than an Englishman (non tarn Anglo, quam angelo)."

This extraordinary speech of the Bishop of Bitonto, in the midst of all its extravagance and blasphemy, contains one truth — a very just comparison of the Council of Trent to the Trojan horse. What could more forcibly illustrate the fraud, hypocrisy and mischievous designs of the Holy Fathers ?

28 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

" more excellent 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 infallible truth, and if your arguments do not establish beyond the possi- bility of a reasonable doubt the inspiration of the Apocrypha, they fall short of the purpose which you have brought them for- ward 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 argu- ment may be compendiously expressed in the following syllo- gism :

Whatever the pastors of the Church of Rome 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 par- ticular case, because it could not err in any case. It is the argu- mentum a non posse ad non esse, which is then only logically sound when the wow posse is sufficiently established. Since the whole weight of your reasoning rests upon the truth of your ma- jor proposition, you have very judiciously employed all your re- sources in fortifying it. Still, sir, after all your care, it is sig- nally exposed to heretical assaults. In the first place, you must be aware that your argument is vitiated by that species of paral- ogism which logicians denominate ambiguity of the middle. What is the precise extension of the words " pastors of the 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 wholly unable to apprehend your meaning. At one time it would seem that you mean the whole body of your priesthood collected to- gether in a grand assembly. You speak of a bodjj of individuals, to whom, in thci?' collective capacity, God has given authority to make an unerring decision." Then, again, you inform us that the '* pastors of the Catholic Church" (meaning, of course, the

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 29

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 pro- position 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 not manifestly the shadow of a claim to the precious virtue of infallibility. In this case your major might be true, and yel 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 infalli- bility lodged in such an assembly for the guidance of human faith or the regulation of human practice, is just as intangible and worthless as if it were lodored with the man in the moon. Still, whether this infallible tribunal were accessible or not, your argument would be a contemptible sophism. It would stand pre- cisely 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, however, they are to be taken in a restricted sense, you should have told us precisely what limitation you intended to prefix ; otherwise your reasoning may be still vitiated by an ambiguous middle. Without such an explanation, we have no means of ascertaining whether the words 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 at- taches 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

30: ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

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 un- der any circumstances, shall be infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost in all their decisions, concerning doctrine and practice 1 — that even the same number which met at Trent, collected to- gether by accident, or merely by mutual consent, would be pos- sessed of the same exemption from all possibility of error which 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 dejined, and while your leading proposition is left in this unsettled condition, what logician can determine whether your argument be any thing more than a specious fallacy 1 Cer- tain 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, sir, in all your letters have you touched this point ? What ivas there that dis- tinguished the Fathers of Trent from an equal number of Bishops and Divines met together upon their own responsibility in such a way as to make the former infallible, and the latter not? Was it the authority of the Pope? Then, sir, your argu- ment was not complete until you had proved, with absolute cer- tainty, that a Papal Bull secures the guidance of the Holy Ghost! Was it the concurrence of the Emperor? This matter is no- where established. Was it both combined? What was it, sir? Reasoning4;o you, sir, is evidently a neiv vocation. You have been in the habit of trusting so implicitly to the authority of others in the formation of your creed, that your first efforts at ratiocina- tion are as awkward and ridiculous, as the rude motions of an infant just learning to walk, or of a bird just learning to fly. Let me remind you, sir, 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 assump- tions— 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.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. Si*

There is still another meaning, which your major proposition may bear. You may have employed the words "pastors of the Church of Rome" in a distributive sense, and then you would distinctly inform us that every priest belonging to your sect, shall infallibly teach the truth. The application of your aro-u- ment 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 what books arose from " private interpretation ?" The testimony of the single, individual priest, is all the evidence that he does or can have. If, then, he has infallible evidence, the testimony of the priest, which is his only evidence, must be infallible, and consequently the priest himself must be infalli- ble too, or incapableof teaching error. It is not enouorh that the water should be pure at the fountain, it must also be pure in the channels through which it is conveyed. The Council of Trent may have been infallible, but if it has only fallible expounders the people can have nothing hut fallible evidence. According to you, however, the people do have infallible evidence — therefore, the Council must have infallible expounders — therefore every pastor must be individually, infallible.* While your aro-ument

*■ " 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 credulity, 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 infallibly true ; it is infollibly 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 Church's infallible belief, of what God has declared to be infallibly true. If any one of 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 infallibility.if his judgment be only ' private judgment,' we come back

32 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

however, indispensably requires this sense, you seem to disclaim it in those passages of your letters, which speak of a body of in- dividuals in their collective capacity, as the chosen depositories of the truth of God. How, I beseech you, is a poor Protestant heretic, with no other helps but his grammar and lexicon, and no other guide but his own reason, to detect your real meaning in this mass of ambiguity and confusion ? I would not misrep- resent 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 paragraphs. 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 infallibly true.

4. Whatsoever any priest or pastor of the Church of Rome declares, must be infallibly true.

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 exquisite specimen of reasoning, must not be surprised if they meet with the same 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 endeavor to collect from two general propositions, which it is necessary to your argument to

at once to the perplexities of the common theory of private judgment." — Edin- burgh Review, l>io. 139, Amer. reprint, p. 206.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. ^

link together as antecedent and consequent. First you inform us that God must have " given authority to a body of individu- als 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 infalli- ble conclusion. You must sliotc, according to the process of argument which you have prescribed for yourself, not only that an infallible body exists, but that it is and can he composed of no other elements but those that 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 caUvse.

It is not a little remarkable, in the history of human paradox, contradiction and absurdity, that absolute infallihility 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 common degree of credibility. You have presented the pastors of the Church of Rome before us distinctly in the 'Ai\.\iu(\G o^ loitncsscs. Their power in regard to articles of faith is simply declarative; they can only trans- mit to others, pure and uncorrupted, that 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 Apos- tles, we are bound to receive upon their testimony. Whatso- ever they declare or testify to be true, according to your state- ment, must be infallibly certain. Now the credibility of a wit- ness depends as much upon his moral integrity as upon his means and opportunities of knowledge. He must not only knoio the truth, but be disposed to speak it. As, too, our assent to testimony is ultimately founded upon our instinctive belief that every ef- fect must have its adequate cause, when existing causes can be assigned which are sufficient to account for the deposition of a

3

34 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

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 undertake 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 ex- emption from all adequate temptations to bear false witness. To prove their knowledge of the subject is not enough — their integrity must also be fully made out. Any abstract argu- ments, however refined and ingenious, would be liable to a pal- pable reductio ad absurdum, if after all their extravagant preten- sions, 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 confidence in tes- timony. Has it ever been shown, sir, that the Bishops of your Church have never been exposed, from their lordly ambition and in- domitable 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 unexceptionable witnesses in the holy subject of religion? How will you dispose of the remarkable testimony of Pope Ad- rian VI., who confessed through his Nuncio to the Diet of Nurem- berg, that the deplorable condition of the Church was " caused by the sins of men, especially of the Priests ?ly\A PrelatesV^ What say you, sir, to that admirable commentary 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 knowledge of the facts, and despatched with all possible rapidity to Rome? Do the records of the past furnish no authenticated instances in which your infallible pas- tors 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

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 35

has, indeed, been a perpetual resident in this cage of unclean birds; if the ordinary credibility which attaches to a common witness 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 judgment, 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.*

Tried, sir, in^the scale in which other witnesses are tried, you will be found deplorably wanting. Your temptations to du- plirAty are too strong, and your weight of inoral character too small, to command the least respect for your testimony. Hence, you very wisely evade all moral considerations, and resolve your boasted infallibility, not into your own attachment to the truth, but into a stern necessity, to which God subjects you by his guardian Providence and the irresistible operations of his Spirit, of uttering whatever he shall put into your mouth, as Baalam's Ass, through his power, overcame the impediments of nature and spoke in the language of men. Whether you have succeeded in de- monstrating by infallible evidence, that you are the subjects — the passive and mechanical subjects — of such an uncontrollable af-

* " Without entering into the mazes of a frivolous and unintelligible dispute about words, it is sufficient to remark, that the supernatural and infallible guidance of a Church, which leaves it to stumble on the threshold of morality, to confound the essential distinctions of right and wrong, to recommend the vio- lation of the most solemn compacts, and the nmrder 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 eter- nal fountain of love and purity inhabits the breast, which ' breathes out cruelty and slaughter.' If persecution for conscience' sake, is contrary to the princi- ples of justice and the genius of Christianity ; then, I say, this holy and infalli- ble Church was so abandoned of God, as to be permitted to legitimate the foul- est 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, maybe safely left to the judgment of common sense." — Hall's M^orks, vol. iv. p. 249.

36 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

flatus from above, as may entitle you to a credit which your hon- esty and integrity would never warraant, remains now to be in- quired.

Letter III -

Examination of the argument from the necessity of the case in favor of some infallible tribunal, shown to be presumptuous and weak.

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 endeavor to establish by showing, in the first place, that there must be some " body of individuals to whom, in their collective capacity," God has graciously vouchsafed the precious prerogative which you claim for your pastors. Accord- ing 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 decisions in matters of faith, and with- out which the overwhelming majority of the race must be aban- doned to hopeless and complete infidelity.* If there were, in- deed, no escape 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 with his children than to commit their fate to the teach- ings of a body " whose garments are dyed in blood," whose

•

* " Does there exist a body of men clothed with this authority, guaranteed by such a divine promise from error ] Has it made a declaration setting forth, in pursuance of that authority, what works are truly inspired ? You, reverend sir, are forced to the alternative of either answering both questions in the affinnative, or of saying that the overwhelming majority of Christians are sol- emnly 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." — Letter I.

" Unaided reason almost assures me, this is the course the Saviour would adopt." — Letter I.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 37

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 achievements, can give us nothing but w^ormwood and gall, a stone for bread and a serpent for a fish. The friends of liberty and man, if reduced to the deplorable al- ternative of reaching 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, sir, I am per- suaded 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 unsearchable and his ways past finding out, should have been able to devise, in the ex- haustless 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 inspiration of the Scriptures, from the absolute impossibility that any other scheme could be efficient or successful.* What is this but to limit the Holy One of Israel ? You would do well to remember that the pur- poses 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 expediency or fitness — to

* " The fourth method alone is, therefore, both practicable in the ordinary condition of the Christian world, and efficient. ***** After thus establishing the absolute necessity of admitting that authority 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 inspira- tion of those works against which it is directed." — Letter I.

38 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

bring the plans of Him who is wonderful 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 effort. A sound philosophy as well as a proper rever- ence for God would surely dictate that His appointments must always be efficacious and successful, simply because they are His appointments. 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 un- promising arrangements, or by no subsidiary instruments at all. Plausible objections avail nothing against divine institutions. Whatever does not contradict the essential 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 ac- complish 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 upon 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 are not tyrants, and the people are not slaves. But your objec- tions 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 arbitrary speculation, and to settle with certainty the appointments 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 finds objects of worship in departed men? Certain it is that your reasoning involves the tremendous conclusion that the great, the everlast- ing Jehovah, the Creator of the ends of the earth, is altogether such an one as we ourselves. Do you not tell us, in effect, that

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED, 39

God could not have given satisfactory evidence of the truth and inspiration of his own word, without establishing a visible tri- bunal 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, according to your reasoning, must be re- ceived as an infallible truth, ']n?>i as absolutely certain as an axiom in geometry. The argument by which you reach this stupen- dous conclusion, has been wonderfully labored ; but when weighed in the balances of logical propriety, it is found as wonderfully wanting ; and it becomes a matter of astonishment how any hu- man being who " bore a brain " could ever have been so egre- giously duped as to have mistaken such a tirade of folly for le- gitimate reasoning. I shall now proceed, in all candor and fidelity, to expose the " nakedness of the land."

With a self-sufficiency of understanding which never betray- ed itself in such illustrious men as Bacon, Newton, Locke, or Boyle, you undertake to enumerate all the possible expedients by which God could ascertain his creatures of the inspiration of his word. These you reduce to four,* and as the first three, according to you, are neither " practical nor efficient," the fourth

* " Now, reverend sir, there may be many ways of seeking to ascertain the fact of the inspiration of any writer or writers. They may, however, be all re- duced to the four following methods :

" 1. Is every man, no matter what be his condition, to investigate by his own labor and research, and duly examine the arguments that have been or can be alleged for and against the several books, which, it is asserted, are inspired ; and, on the strength of that examination, to decide for himself with abso- lute certainty, what books are and what are not inspired ?

" 2. Is every individual to receive books as inspired, or to reject them as un- inspired, according to the decisions of persons he esteems duly qualified by erudition and sound judgment, to determine that question accurately ?

" 3. Must he learn the inspiration of the Scriptures from some individual, whom God commissioned to announce this fact to the world ?

" 4. Must he learn it from a body of individuals, to whom, in their collec- tive capacity, God has given authority to make an unerring decision on the sub- ject ?*****

" To some one of these four methods every \i\nn of proving the inspiration o^ the Scriptures can be reduced." — Letter T.

40 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

remains as a necessary truth. In the species of argument * which you have thought proper to adopt, the validity of the reasoning depends on two circumstances : 1st. All the possible supposi- tions which can be conceived to be true must be actually made ; and 2d, 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 can- on of Scripture, and hence your argument proceeds upon a legiti- mate assumption. t

1. Now, sir, the first question which arises upon a critical review of your argument is : Do your four schemes completely exhaust the subject ? Are these the only conceivable plans by which the inspiration of the Scriptures could be satisfactorily es- tablished ? 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 infalli- ble conclusion consequently false. In Paley's celebrated argu- ment for the benevolence of God, if he had simply stated that the Deity must either intend our happiness or misery, and had omit- ted entirely all notice of the third supposition, that he might be indifferent to both — the conclusion, however true in itself, would

* The argument ^of "A. P. P." 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 Scrip- tures, or rely on the authority of others. He cannot judge for himself, there- fore, he must rely on the authority of others. This is the first step.

If he must rely on authority, it must either be ths authority of uninspired individuals, of a single inspired individual, or an inspired body of individuals. It cannot be the first two ; therefore, it it must be the last. Now, accord- ing 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 es- tablished in the conclusion. The argument in question, violates both rules, and therefore, upon every view of the subject, must be a fallacy.

t " We cannot be called on to believe any proposition not sustained by ade- quate proof When Almighty God deigned to inspire the words contained in the Holy Scriptures, he intended they should be held and believed to be inspired. Therefore, tkere does exist some adequate proof of their inspiration." — Letter I.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 41

not have been logically just. Without pretending that I am ca- pable of specifying all the methods by which God might authen- ticate his own revelation, I can at least conceive oi^ one, in ad- dition to those enumerated by you, which might have been adopt- ed, which may therefore possibly be true, and which, until you have shown it to he false, must hold your triumphant conclusion in abeyance. It is possible that God himself, by his Eternal Spirit, may condescend to be the teacher of merf, and enlighten their understandings to perceive in the Scriptures themselves infalli- ble marks of their divine original. That you should so entirely have overlooked this hypothesis — which must be overthrown be- fore your argument can stand — is a little singular, since it is distinctly stated in the very chapter of the Westminster Confes- sion to which you have alluded.*

^ "The heavens,"we are told, " declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork. For 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 Godhead." If the material workmanship of God bears such clear and decisive traces of its divine and eternal Author, as to leave the atheist and idolater 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 supernatu- ral elevation, which are suited to impress the reader with an irresistible conviction, that these venerable documents 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 much beyond the words of men, as the mighty works which Christ did, were above their works, and his prophecies beyond their knowledge V Jehovah has left the outward universe to speak for itself. Sun, moon and

* " Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine au- thority thereof, (Holy Scriptures,) is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts." — Westminster Couf. chap. i. 55.

3*

42 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

stars, in their appointed orbits, proclaim an eternal Creator, and require no body of men, " of individuals in their collective capaci- ty," to interpret their voice, or to teach the world that " the hand vi^hich 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 ttie character 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 necessary 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 pretensions to canonical authority. '^ The fact that multitudes who hold the Bible in their hand, do not perceive these infallible tokens of its supernatural 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 is 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 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. Hence to the production o^ faith, in order that the evidence, the infallible evidence which actually exists, 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 vouchsafed to illuminate the darkened mind, and remove the impediments of spiritual vision. The infallible evidence is in the Scriptures ; the power of perceiv- ing 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

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 43

grace; so that evidence may be infallible and yet not e^cctual, through the folly and perverseness of men. Bellarmin declares that *' the aro-uments which render the articles of our faith credi- ble, are not such as to produce an undoubted faith, unless the mind be divinely assisted.* And you have told us that the teach- ing of your pastors meets with a firmer and readier asssent among minds that have been touched by the Spirit of God.t Now ^\\', 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 au- thority, because all who possess them do not receive their testi- mony. 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 Jehovahs 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 inspi- ration 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 evidence contained in the books themselves, their divine inspiration may be cer- tainly collected. Whether true or false, right or wrong, this has been the doctrine of the Church of God from the beginning.^

* " Argumenta quae articulos fidei nostrse credibiles faciunt non talia sunt ut fidem omnino indubitatam reddant, nisi mens divinitus adjuvetur." — De Grat. et Lib. Arh. lib. vi. cap. .3.

t " 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 indi- vidual 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." — Letter I.

t As a specimen of what have been the sentiments of distinguished writere, I give a few extracts, selected from the midst of many others equally striking, which may be found arranged in Owen's admirable Discourse on the Reason of Faith. — Works, vol. iii. p. 359, scq. The following passage from Clemens Alexandrinus is remarkable, as asserting at once the sufficiency of Scripture and the right of privat*' judgment in opposition to all hutnan nufhority :

44 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

And before you can hope to overthrow it, you must be prepared to prove, vi^hat, I think, you will find an irksome undertaking, that the Scriptures do not bear any signs or marks characteristic of their author, and that God's grace will not be vouchsafed to

Ov yap aTrXwff aTro<paivojx£vois avOpcotroig ■!rpoa£-)(^oiix£v oig kui avrairocpaivedii tir icrji eh<7Tiv. Et ^' ovK 0-px^'- ^0*'°^' (i''^^^^ enreiv to So^av, aWa TfiaTWffaaOai Set to Xe^Oev' ov TTjv e^ avdpwnoiv avaixevo[i£v fiapTvpiav, aWa tt) tov l^vpiov (puvt] TiiaTovixaOa to ^tjtov- usvov. 'H -naafjiv airoSet^ecov ex^yyvoTepa //aXXoi/ 6e rf nave UTroSei^is ovaa rvyx^avei. OvTCjg ovv Kai ^/i£tff at' avTWv Trepi avroiv tojv ypa(pcjv TtXeioiS anoSeiKvvvTes ek Trtorccos ireiBoixeda amSsiKTiKcos. — Strom, lib. vii. cap. 16. "For we would not attend or give credit simply to the definitions of men, seeing we have a right also to define in contradiction mito 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 demonstra- tion of the Scripture out of the Scripture, are assured by faith as by demon- stration."

Basil on Psalm 115, says : — Tliorff, ov^^ h yEo^itTpiKais avayKoig. aXA' n tuis tov TTVEvnaTos EVEpysiais sKyivoi/.Evri. " Faith is not the effect of geometrical demon- strations, but of the efficacy of the Spirit."

Nemes.de Horn. cap. 2. — H twv Oeimv Xoyiwi/ St6aa-Ka\ta Ta irtaTov ad)^ EavTrjs exovaa 6ia to QEoirvEvaTov Elvai. " The teaching of the divine oracles has its credibility from itself, because of their divine inspiration."

The words of St. Austin (Conf. lib. ii. cap. 3) are too well known to require to be cited.

The second Council of Orange, in the beginning of the sixth century, in its 5th and 7th canons is explicit to my purpose. Fleury, h. xxxii. 12. — Si quis sicut augmentum ita etiam initium fidei, ipsumque credulitatis affectum, non per gratiae donum, id est, per inspirationem Spiritus Sancti, corrigentem volun- tatem nostram ab infidelitate ad fideni,ab impietate ad pietatem, sed naturaliter nobis inesse dicit, apostolicis dogmatibus adversarius approbatur. Si quis per naturae vigorem bonum aliquod quod ad salutem pertinet vitae aeternae cogitare ut expedit aut eligere, sive salutari, id est, evangelicae praedicationi consentire posse affimiat absque illuminatione et inspiratione Spiritus Sancti, qui dat om- nibus suavitatem consentiendo et credendo veritati, haeretico fallitur spiritu. " If any one say that the beginning or increase of faith and the very affection 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 vigor of nature think any thing good which pertains to salvation as he ought, or choose, or consent to saving, that is, to evangelical preaching without the iliiiminatinn and inspiration of tho Holy Spirit, who gives to all the

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 45

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 argument vanishes into air ; it violates the very first law of that species of complex

sweet relish in consenting to and believing the truth, he is deceived by an he- retical spirit."

Arnobius advers. Gentes, lib. 3, c. l,says : " Neque enim stare sine asserto- ribus non potest religio Christiana 1 Aut eo esse comprobatur vera, si adstipu- latores habuerit plurimos, et auctoritatem ab hominibus sumpserit ? Suis ilia contenta est viribus et veritatis propriae fundaminibus nititur nee spoliatur sua vi, etam si nullum habeat vindicem, immo si linguae omnes contra faciant con- traque nitantur et ad fidem illius abrogandam 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 own inherent strength, and stands firm upon the ba- sis 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 contradict and resist it, and to combine with rage and fury to effect its destruction."

The great Athanasius (Orat. Cont. Gent. c. 1) says:

A.VTapK£ii eiaiv ai ayiai kui OeoTrvevgrot ypatpai tt.ooj rriv r>7?j aXrfOeiai a-rrayyeXiau. " 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. 3, cap. 2. It concludes ^as fol- lows : " Cur ergo non omncs credunt evangelio ? Quod non omnes trahuntur a Deo. Sed longaopus est disputatione ? Firmiter sacris Scripturis ideo credimus quod divinam inspirationera intus accepimus." " Why, then, do not all believe the Gospel ? Because all are not drawn of God. But what need of any long disputation ] We therefore firmly believe the Scripture because we have re- ceived a Divine inspiration." Those who wish to find a large collection of Patristic passages bearing on this point, will meet with ample satisfaction in chap. ix. of Good's Rule of Faith. The whole subject is ably discussed in Calvin's Institutes, Owen on the Reason of Faith and his kindred treatise, and Halyburton'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, however, to advert to tlie two beautiful illustrations of the power of the Scriptures to authenticate them- selves, which Justin Martyr and Francis Junius have given us in their accounts of their own conversion.

46 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

syllogism to which it may be easily reduced. You have beaten your drum, and flourished your trumpets, 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 he winter, because it was neitlier 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 suppressed when it must have been under your eyes, may not be, after all your elaborate discussion, the true method of God. In this an- cient doctrine of the Church of God, there may be an escape from your fatal dilemma, and men may find a sure and infalli- ble passage to heaven without making a journey to Rome to be guided in the way. Upon your principles of reasoning, dilem- mas are easily made, but very fortunately they are just as easily avoided. Their horns, weak and powerless as a papal bull, can- not gore the stubborn and refractory. He who should infer that a sick man must be scorching with fever because he is not ach- ing 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.

2. Your reasoning is not only radically defective in conse- quence of an imperfect enumeration of particulars, but fatally un- successful 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 jjroved it? So far from it, that the objections which you have adduced against your first three methods, apply just as power- fully to the fourth; and prove, if they prove any thing, that nei- ther 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 im-

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 47

plying the responsibility of men for their opinions, and a conse- quent 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 *' practica- ble nor efficient."

Why 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 indi- vidual happiness is so deeply concerned ? Because,* according

* " The arguments in this course," (that is, in determining for one's self,) " would be of two classes, external and internal ; either or both of which would form matter for investigation. He might seek, as you^have endeavored to do, whether there exists a sufficient mass of testimony to establish the fact or facts, that God did, at certain times and on certain occasions, exercise over particu- lar writers, the supernatural influence of inspiration ; or from a consideration of the perfection of the Scriptures, he might conclude that they were above the power of unaided men, and therefore must be of divine origin. To perform the first properly, he must be deeply versed in the Latin, the Greek and the Hebrew, perhaps, too, in several modern languages ; must have at his command a more extensive library than, I believe, Charleston can boast of; must spend, conse- quently, many long years of study in acquiring those languages, and obtaining and searching out the thousand and one testimonies scattered through a hundred musty tomes, and in acquiring that thorough knowledge of times, of men, of writings, which will enable him to judge of the credibility of those witnesses ; must, finally, possess an unrivalled, almost supernatural accuracy of judgment to reconcile this mass of conflicting statements, and, distinguishing which are worthy and which unworthy of credit, to conclude confidently and evidently, in favor of, or against the inspiration of the books examined. The second re- quires a thorough acquaintance with the Scriptures in the original Hebrew, Greek and Chaldean, and in the ancient versions in Samaritan, Copht, Arabic, Syriac, Greek and Latin, and with the ancient manuscripts ; and the abihty to apply to all this the subtle rules of refined criticism, in order to determine, in the first place, as far as can be ascertained, the exact language and mean- ing of the sacred writers; a thorough knowledge of the abilities and acquire- ments of each writer, and the state of science and already revealed religion in his country and age, in order to see to what extent of perfection his own pow- ers with such aids could naturally carry him ; the faculty also, of duly appreci- ating the beauties of the sacred writings, and that knowledge of Chemistry, of Natural History, of Geology, of the History of Nations, and of almost every science, which may enable him fully and satisfactorily to refute all the objec- tions brought from these different sources against the intrinsic truth, and con- sequently, Internal evidence of the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures. Need

48 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

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 incapable of estimating properly the his- torical 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 mat- ter, which, of all others, is most important to their happiness. Maimonides* goes a little beyond you. He not only makes Logic, Mathematics and Natural Philosophy indispensable to our jirogress in divine knowledge, but absolutely necessary in order to settle i\\Q 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 deficiencies by submitting im- plicitly to cabalistical instruction ! You, I presume, would grant that a man could be assured of the existence of the Deity, without an intimate acquaintance with Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldee, and divers 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 inspiration of the Scriptures. 4 Let us grant, for a moment, that all this immense apparatus of learning is necessary to settle a plain, simple, historical fact ; what becomes of the skill and competency of your infallible hocly? 1{ 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 well 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 Amer- ica were ransacked, how many individuals could be found, each of whom should possess the varied and extensive attainments which you make indispensable in settling a plain question of fact

I say, it is all important that he should be able to possess and peruse the books, on whose inspiration he is thus to decide ?" — Letter I * More Neboeh,pars i. c. .34,

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 49

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, sir, that there was not a single individual in the whole Council of Trent, who possessed 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

" Hebrew roots were only found To flourish best in barren ground."

Their skill in Samaritan, Coptic, Arabic, and Syriac versions, may be readily conjectured from their profound acquaintance with the original text. If they were deeply versed in the mys- teries 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 prelates 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 cer- tainty? But perhaps you will say that the Fathers possessed some other evidence — that they themselves were supernaturalli/ inspired, or irresistibly guided by God's grace to make an un- erring decision? To say nothing of the fact that your argu- ment, in order to be conclusive, requires you to show that the same supernatural assistance cannot be vouchsafed to individuals as well as to a body, I would simply ask hoio could the Fathers knoio that they were inspired ? You have made all human hioivhdge 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, consequently,

50 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

internal evidence of the divine 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 teachino-3, that is, until he can show that scientific objections are really groundless, how can he be satisfied of his own inspi- ration until he can, in like manner, determine that the propo- sitions suggested to him 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 that any body of men has been supernaturally guided, until ihei/ are able to refute all the objections from all the departments of human knowledge to the decrees of the body ? Will you say that inspiration, once settled, answers all objections? Very true. But how is the inspiration to be settled ? You say that an incUviclual cannot iudo-e 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 ?ihody of individuals. 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 intrin- sic 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 inspiration 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, tlien, 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 conclu- sion. If, sir, the infallibility of a body depends upon the illumi- nation 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 triumphant argument is a

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 51

beggarly sophism. Your objections to private judgment prove too much, and therefore prove nothing. Whatever is simply necessary to establish inspiration, applies as much to the inspira- tion of Trent, as to the inspiration of David, 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 inspira- tion, that the authors of the Bible wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Your long, involved, and intricate account of the learning and attainments required for this end, could easily be shown, and has been triumphantly shown, to be a mere phan- tom of the brain. You are fond, sir, of raising imaginary dif- ficulties in the way of the humble inquirer after truth, in order that you may find a ready market for the wares of Rome. But in this instance, sir, 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 cer- tainty upon the inspiration of the Scriptures, without the learning which is necessary, in your view, to understand the evidence, if they themselves were uninspired — or how, if inspired, they could, without this learning, either be certain themselves of the fact or establish it with infallible certainty to the mass of the peo- ple, who, without your learning, 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 /jrorc and disprove at the same time.

3. Bijt, sir, the chapter of your misfortunes is not yet closed. Your favorite, triumphant, oft-repeated argument not only labors 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 f\iils to answer your purpose. It does not yield you, what your cause requires, an infallible con- clusion. At its best estate, it is a broken reed, which can only pierce the bosom of him that leans on it. You infer that a certain plan must be the true one, because all others are

52 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

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 which 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 o^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 in- fallible, 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 unquestionably true. If there be the least degree of probability in favor of any one of these schemes, that probability, however slight, is fatal to the infallible certainty required by your cause. Your conclusion, in such a case, can only result 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 suppo- sitions are just as likely to be true, or can, at least, be as harm- lessly adopted as that which you have taken into favor. We are told by your doctors, that a probable opinion may be safely fol- lowed, and their standard of probability is the approbation of a doctor or the example of the good — " Sufficit opinio alicujus gravis doctoris, aut bonorum 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? 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

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 63

was primate of the Universal Church ; that he is the true Lieu- tenant of Christ — the father and teacher of all Christians; and that unto h'lm 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 satisfactory information concerning the canon of Scripture and every other point of faith. The prelates of the Lateran Council under Leo X. offered the most fulsome and disgusting flatteries to that skeptical Pontiff, calling him King of Kings, and Mon- arch 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 ; be- cause the Pontiff himself, while he was yet ignorant of the tem- per of the Fathers, was secretly afraid that they might follow the examples of Constance and Basil. Pighius, Gretser, Bellarmin, and Gregory of Valentia, have ascribed infallibility to the head of your Church, in the most explicit and unmeasured terms.*

* 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, atque adeo re ipsa uti- tur authoritate sibi a Christo concessa." — Analy's Fid. Q, 6. " Whether the Pontiff apply care and attention or not in his determinations, yet, provided he is determining controversy, his decisions are certainly infallible, and so in reality he uses the authority granted him by Christ."

Augustinus Triumphus observes : " Novum symbolum condere solum ad Papam spectat, quia est caput fidei Christianas, cujus auctoritate omnia quae ad fidem spectant firmantur et roborantur." — Q. 59, Art. 1. " To compose a new creed pertains to the Pope alone, because he is the head of the Christian faith, by whose authority all things pertaining to faith are confirmed."

This same writer, treating of ecclesiastical power, observes again : " Error est non credere Pontificem Romanum universalis ecclesiae pastorem, Petri suc- cessorem, et Christi Vicarium, supra temporalia et spiritualia universalem non habere primatum, in quem, quandoque multi labuntur, dictse potestatis igno- rantiae, quae cum sit infinita eo quod magnus est dominus et magna virtus ejus et magnitudinis ejus non est finis, omnis creatus intellectus in ejus persecutatione invenitur deficere." " It is an error not to believe that the Roman Pontifi', the pas- tor of the Church universal, the successor of Peter and vicar of Christ, has not a universal primacy over things temporal and spiritual ; into which error many are apt to fall through ignorance of said power, wliich is infinite, because great

54 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

It is generally understood, too, that this doctrine is maintained 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 individual 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 hy- pothesis, 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. However, let Gregory XVI. be first gathered to his fathers, as he might not brook so flat a contradic- tion to his own published opinions.* I am inclined to think that,

is the Lord and great is his might, and of his greatness there is no bound ; there- fore every created understanding must fail in the searching of him." — Prcpf. P. John 22. But the cUmax of absurdity and blasphemy is fairly reached in the following passage from Bellarmin, De Pont, 4, 1 : " Si autem Papa erraret praecipiendo vitia, vel prohibendo virtutem, teneretur ecclesia credere vitia e.sse bona et virtutes malas, nisi vellet contra conscientiam peccare." The plain meaning is, if the Pope should command men to violate God's laws, they are bound to do it. In other words, the Pope is above the Almighty.

Scores of passages to the like effect maybe collected from the writings of the Popes themselves.

* I have before me the French translation of a book, written by the present Pontiff, when he was Cardinal Maur Coppellari, 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 repudiates, with horror, the Gal- lican doctrine of the superiority of Councils, and stoutly maintains that the gov- ernment of the Church is an absolute monarchy, of which the Pontiff is the in- fallible head. It is a little singular that A. P.F. should dismiss with contempt, as unworthy of discussion, 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 specimen 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 ete prouve, est un vrai monarque ; done il doit etre pourvu des moyens necessaires a 1' exercice de son autorite monarchique.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 55

to the majority of papal minds, there is so much probability in this third opinion, that if your letter had been written by a Jesuit at Rome, it would in fact, have been made the infallible conclii-

Mais le moyen le plus necessaires k cette fin sera celui qui otera tout pre- texte a. ses sujets de refuser de se soumettre k ses decisions et a ses lois, et son infaillibilite seule peut avoir cette efticacite. Done le Pape est infaillihle." — Prelim. Dis. Vol. 1. p. 174, § 82.

" Quoique, aprcs tous ce qui a ete dit jusqu' d present, il ne dut pas etre nccessaire de rien ajouter d' avantage, je chercherai encore k les tirer de leurs erreurs pas des argumens plus pressans. Parmi toutes les societes, celle-la seule est infaillible,qui constitute la veritable Eglise ; c' est de foi : mais il n' y a pas de veritable Eglise sans Pierre ; nous 1' avons demontre : done 1' infailli- bilite appartiens exclusivemens k la societe qui est unie a Pier/e et a ses succes- seurs. Or cette union avec Pierre ou avec le Pape ne serait pas une note suf- fisante pour distinguer entre plusieurs societes celle qui serait infaillible,si cette union ne contribuait en quelque maniere pas son concours a faire jouir cette so- ciete du privilege de 1' infaillibilite ; done cette doit reehnent y contribuer et y concourir. Mais 1' Eglise doit avoir, sans ses definitions, une infaillibilite per- petuelle et durable jusqu' a la fin des siecles ; done la meme perpetuite, la meme duree jusqu' a la fin des siecles doit etre assuree au concours de cette union de I' Eglise avec le Pape, a lequelle est attachee Tinfaillibilite de 1' Eglise elle-meme. D' ou il s' ensuit que, dans le cas d' un point quelconque a definer, il sera aussi vrai de dire, avant meme qu'il ait lieu que ce concours positif et explicite ne manquera pas, qu'il est vrai de dire que 1' Eglise est infaillible dans le decisions qu' elle portera, et qu' elle ne tombera pas dans 1' erreur. Mais, s' il est certain que, toutes les fois qu' il s' agira de definir un point de foi, on pourra compter sur le concours de I'union de 1' Eglise avec le Pape, il doit etre egalement cer- tain que Dieu ne permettra jamais que le Pape ne donne pas son assentiment a des verites de foi, puieque, sans ses assentiment, il ne saurait y avoir de veri- table definition de 1' Eglise. Done, si ce concours doit etre continuel et per- petuel, Dieu devra continuellement et perpetuellement incliner le Pape a don- ner son assentiment aux verites de foi ; et il ne permettra jamais que la Pape, comme tel, s' eloigne de la vraie croyance. En effet, s' il yen etait pas ainsi, et que Dieu put permettre que le Pape, en cette qualite abandonnat la verite, il pourrait arriver que par sa primante dans 1' Eglise, et par le droit qu'il a pour le maintien de 1' unite, comme dit saint Thomas, de proposer le point de foi, il entrainat 1' Eglise avec lui dans .1' erreur. Done Dieu a du accorder au Pape, comme tel, le privilege d'une infaillibilite independantc de 1' Eglise, independ- ante de cette societe, a 1' infaillibilite de laquelle il contribue et concours par le moyen de l' union de celle-ce avec lui. Les novateurs ne peuvent rejiter cette consequence sans la necessite du concours du Pape ; et s' ils la nient, ils se ran- gent parmi les schismatiques et les protestans, que se font une Eglise separee du Pape."— FoL 1, chap. 2,pp 20G-8.

56 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

sion. Certain it is that you have not offered a single argument against it. You play off upon Esdras and the Jewish Sanhedrim, and sundry questions which '' more veteran scholars than you" have found it hard to decide, and then conclude with inimitable self-complacency, that the " third method cannot be admitted." Sir, when you write again, let me beseech you to write in syllo- gisms. If you have disproved the infallibility of the Pope, I can- not 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 favor, or such mighty minds as those of Newton, Bacon, Locke and Chilling- worth, 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 founda- tion of the glorious fabric of American freedom, and distinguish- es the constitutions of all our States, is not to be dismissed with- out examination as grossly false, or palpably absurd. The condi- tions 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 admitted, sir, all that the friends of private judgment deem to be important in the case. According to your own statement, the ignorant and unlearned may be as- sured, upon sufficient grounds, of the genuineness and authentici- ty/ of the books of the New Testament. This foundation being laid, inspiration will naturally follow. So that, notwithstanding all your objections, private judgment remains unaffected, in the strength and glory of its intrinsic probability.

How then, upon a just estimate of its merits, stands your boasted argument? Why, there are only four suppositions that can be made in the case. The first and third of these are so

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 57

extremely probable that millions of the human race have believed them to be true. Therefore the fourth must be infallibly cer- tain I Weighed in the balances of logical propriety, the infalli- ble certainty of your conclusion turns out to be like Berkely's " vanishing ghosts of departed quantities."

Letter IV

It is just as easy to prove the Inspiration of the Scriptures as the Infallibility of any Church.

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 de- stroys 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 that has even the appearance of regularity and order. Truth, on the other hand, is simple and uniform. Her body, like that of the beau- tiful Osiris, is composed of homogeneous and well-adjusted parts; and as, in the progress of discovery, or the light of patient inves- tigation, 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 charmwhich, like the magic of musical enchantment, chains its sympathies, and captivates its powers. The fascinations of falsehood are essentially distin- guished from the "divine, enchanting ravishment" of truth, by their peculiar effects upon the health and vigor of the soul. Whatever pleasure they administer is like the profound slumber produced by powerful drugs or stupifying potions, in which the joys that are experienced are the unnatural results of a temporary delirium ; 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

4

58 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

sacred and homefelt delight " — a manly and solid satisfaction, which at once refreshes and invigorates the mind, belongs exclu- sively 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. False- hood, however 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 dif- ferent statements of the sophist or deceiver in immediate juxta- position, and leave them, in their war of contradictions, to demol- ish the system which their master had laboriously toiled to erect. The most finished productions 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 which is written, as if by the finger of Hea- ven, upon every system of truth.

Without intending to degrade your understanding, you must permit me to call your attention to the fact, that the different portions of your own composition are " like two prevaricating witnesses, who flatly contradict each other, though neither of them speaks the truth." In your zeal to demolish the foundations of faith, you were permitted, in the righteous providence of God, to become involved in a maze of contradictions, which can have no other effect than to draw down upon you the pity and con- tempt of your readers. This confusion of ideas, is not perhaps to be attributed so much to native imbecility of mind, as to the nature of the cause which, with more 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. We are not to be astonished, therefore, to find that your elaborate de- fence of the infallibility of a body, which solemnly sanctioned

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. Oil

one of the most deliberate and atrocious frauds* that ever dis- graced the annals of mankind, should be so ill-conceived and 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 aston- ishment of heart, as to grope at noonday, even as the blind grop- eth 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 righteous severity of God, which visits the

* " When John Huss, the Bohemian Reformer, 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 decreed that the safe-conduct of the Emperor ought to be considered as no impediment to the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but that, notwithstanding, 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 Emperor had done as became his royal majesty in violating his safe-con- duct, and that whoever, of any rank or sect, dares to impugn the justice of the holy council, or of his majesty, in relation to their proceedings with John Huss, shall be punished without hope of pardon, as a favorer of heretical depravity, and guilty of the crime of high treason." — Hall, vol. iv. p. 245. LEnfanVs Council of Constance.

The third Council of Lateran, Canon XVI., decreed that all oaths contrary 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 juramenta, sed potius pcrjuria, quae contra utilitatem ecclesiasticam et sanc- torum patrum renitent institufa."

60 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

advocates of error by sealing up the intellectual eyeball in im- penetrable night, we may learn the awful majesty of truth, and the tremendous danger of trifling with the light. This disastrous judgment is the portentous herald of a deeper woe. It is, there- fore, with feelings of the profoundest pity, and with the most heartfelt reciprocation of your prayer on my behalf, that I am now compelled to expose that tissue of inconsistencies, contra- dictions, and unwarrantable assumptions, which constitutes your second argument ; and if, sir, you shall be made to to feel, as I sincerely trust that you may, that you have been only weaving 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 believing, that God has in fact established, through Jesus Christ, a com- missioned delegate from Heaven, " a body of individuals, to whom, in their collective capacity. He has given authority to make an unerring decision" on the subject of jhe Canon.*

* " One of such a body presenting himself to instruct a Christian or an infidel would first inform him, that a number of years ago, a person known by the name of Jesus Christ, appeared in Judea, and established a new religion. — Sufficient motives of credibility 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, public, and manifest miracles. It will not require much to establish in those works certain striking characteristics, of themselves clearly indicative of a miraculous nature. Hence, common sense is forced to conclude that the religion established by Christ was Divine, springing from God, and binding on man. So far, we find nothing above or contrary to the means and understanding even of an Indian or negro. Our instructor then states, that Christ, in order to secure the extension of His reli- gion 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 as He possessed, to go forth and teach all na- tions all that He had Himself taught in Judea. (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.) 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 (.Tno. xiv. 26) ; that He would

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 61

These historical proofs, you inform us, contain nothing that transcends the means, or surpasses the understanding, even of an Indian or a negro. Now, what are these historical proofs, and whence are they derived ? The recorded facts of the New Testament, received on the authority of the Apostles and Evan- gelists! 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 intercourse with him, and the accuracy of whose reports is universally acknowledged, and can be easily substantiated." In other words, the genuineness and authen- ticity of the books of the New Testament are matters so simple and plain, that there is nothing in the evidence " above or con- trary to the means and understanding of an Indian or a negro."

send them the Spirit of truth, who should abide with them for ever (Jno. xiv. 16, 17), and should teach them all truth (Jno. xiv. 26 ; xvi. 13) ; that He himself would be with them while fulfilling that commission, all days, even to the consummatioa of the world (Matt, xxviii; 20), and that the gates of hell — the fiercest conflicts of enemies — -should never prevail against that Church (Matt. xvi. 18), which He had sent them to found, and ever to instruct. For stronger and more explicit evidence of this, he might, if necessary and con- venient, 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 acknowledged, and can be easily 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 every thing else, they should not seek to change and contradict God's doctrines and precepts too. If He willed that the Religion of Christ, that is, that the doctrines He revealed, should be ever preached and believed ; the precepts 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 appointed to teach in His name and by His authority, as delegates whom, in virtue of the power given Him, He sent, as He was sent by the Father, that provision must evidently and ne- cessarily be directed to preserve the purity of their teaching — 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. Unaided reason almost assures me this is the course the Saviour would adopt. The evidence you lay before me is satisfactory and worthy of credit — I assent.' " — Letter I.

6^ ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

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 possessed the sanction of God. Such is your argument. Now, sir, if the books of the New Testament are to be received as credible testimony to the mira- cles of Christ, why not on the subject of their own inspiration 1 Are you not aware, that the great historical " argument on which Protestants rely, in proving the inspiration of the Scriptures, presupposes only the genuineness of the books, and the credi- bilitj/" of their authors? You have, yourself, admitted that tho teaching of the Apostles was super naturally 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 ab- sent, which, when present, they accomplished by the tongue 1* They, themselves, declare that their writings possessed the same authority with their oral instructions. Petert ranks the Epistles of Paul with the Scriptures 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.X If, then, the credibility of these books is a matter so plain and palpable, and can be so " easily substan-

* " 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 1 To suppose the endowments of the Spirit to be so capriciously bestowed, would make it look more like a mockery than a gift." — Warburton, Doct. of Grace, book i. chap. 5.

t 2 Pet. iii. 15, 16. \ 2 Thess. ii. 15.

^ APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 63

tiafed," and such is your concession, what need of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Chaldee, and divers modern tongues, to- gether with Geology, Chemistry, Natural History, and almost every science, to make out their inspiration ? They assert it, and they are to he believed; therefore 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 diffi- culty in making out the external proof of inspiration, was in establishing the credibility of the books which profess to be in- spired. It had struck me that if it were once settled, that their own testimony 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 be- lieved, except by a man who carries all the learning of Europe and America in his head. Nay, with all the advantages of a '' larger library than Charleston can boast of;" with the tongues alike of the dead and living ; with universal science pour- ing her treasures in boundless profusion at his feet; with an almost ** supernatural accuracy of judgment," added to their other marvellous accomplishments, it is still doubtful whether, in the way of private judgment, a man could ever be assured that credible books were to be believed on the subject of their origin.* But just let one of an infallible body present himself before a Christian or an infidel — an Indian or negro, and how changed the scene ! As if at the waving of a wizard's wand, the mists are dispelled, 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 philosophers" were unable to subdue. This teacher can achieve these mighty wonders before it is proved that he belongs to an unerring band — there is magic in his voice. Just let him ope his ponderous lips

* " Whether any investigation in either or both classes (that is, of external and internal evidence) carried on even under the most favorable circumstances, will unerringly prove the inspiration of any books of the Scripture, I leave to be mooted bv those who choose to undertake the task." — Letter I.

64 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

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 egregious ahsiirdity of attempting to establish the infallihle 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 transpired at the same 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 pre- tended promise made to the pastors of Rome, the New Testa- ment becomes amazingly accurate, and the proofs of its credibil- ity are neither above nor contrary to the means or understand- ing 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, has certainly placed you in a sad dilemma. You cannot make out the historical proofs of Papal infallibility, without mak- ing out at the same time the historical proofs of Scriptural in- spiration. Both must be traced through the same channels to the age of the Apostles.

Now, sir, one of two things must be true ; either the credi- bility of the Scriptures can be substantiated to a plain unlettered man, or it cannot. If it can be, then there is no need of your infallible body to authenticate their inspiration, since that mat- ter can be easily gathered from their own pages. If it cannot, then your argument from the Scriptures, to an Indian or a negro, in favor of an infallible body, is inadmissible, since he is incapa- ble of apprehending the premises from which your conclusion is drawn. You have taken both horns of this dilemma, pushing

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 65

Protestants with one, and upholding Popery with the other, and both ^re 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 Scrip- tures, then you must seek other proofs of an infallible 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 es- tablishes 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 arefairlt/ given up, and you surrender the point, that a man can decide for himself with ab- solute certainty, concerning the inspiration of the Bible. Take which horn you please, your cause is ruined : and as you have suc- cessively chosen both, you have made yourself as ridiculous as your reasoning is contemptible.

The process by which you endeavor to elicit an infallible body of teachers from the Scriptures, is in perfect keeping with the rest of your argument. You do not pretend that they con- tain 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 introduce errors and attempt to change the religion of Christ. — How then does it appear that such infallible instructors were appointed? Why, there is no other way in which God could accomplish His purpose of trans- mitting Christianity pure and uncorrupted to the remotest gen- erations of men. This is the sum and substance of the argu- ment, for the sake of which you have made yourself so consum- mately ridiculous, 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 ten- dency of man," and as Christianity is appointed to be learned from persons delegated to teach in the name and by the authority of

4*

66 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

Christ, '' that provision must evidently and necessarily be directed to preserve that body of teachers, by the povi^er 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 effectual means of perpetuating the religion of Christ, unadulterated with error, is so exceedingly unlikely, that it would require nothing less than a constant miracle to preserve 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 to- gether to separate the chaff 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 opin- ions 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 heart of every solitary teacher, amounting to a miraculous protection from error, the plan of transmitting a system of reli- gion by oral tradition, is the most unsafe, uncertain, and liable to abuse, of any that could be adopted. The commonest story cannot pass through a single community without gathering addi- tion as it goes. How then shall a complicated 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 integ- rity, and gain nothing from the invention of man? Sir, your '* common 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 word can render it credible to me. No, sir, God has taken a different method to guard against the " error and change-seeking tenden- cies of men." He has committed His holy religion to written documents, which are to abide as an infallible standard of faith, till the heavens and the earth are no more. There, and there alone, are we 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

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 67

authority, speak not according to these records, they are to be cast out as lying prophets 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 io propose, but it belongs to the Scriptures alone to confirm or prove the doctrines of religion. The infalli- ble standard is in the Bible, and they who are noble, will, like Bereans, test the instructions of their pastors by the true and faithful sayings of God.

You must remember, sir, that the Scriptures, which you have admitted to be credible, which were written by men under a special promise of Christ to be protected from error and in- structed in the truth, profess to be a perfect rule oi faith and practice. ''Their accuracy can be easily substantiated," 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 variety of means for the accomplishment of any effect, when a few are abundantly adequate, characteris- tic 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 necessary to preserve the doctrines of Christianity in their original purity, is wholly groundless, and your argument, consequently, 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 with them to assist and bless them in preaching 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 re- ceived as an infallible teacher, but that the authority to make an unerring decision belongs exclusively " to a body of individuals

68 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

in their collective 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 inspiration of the Holy Ghost, to record the infallible instructions of Christ, which should be a perpetual rule of faith, containing all things important for man to know or for man to do. * These venerable men live in their books :

* See this subject ably and satisfactorily discussed in Warburton's Doctrine of Grace, pt. i., and Bishop Heber's Bampton Lectures. The reader will ex- cuse 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 authority should gov- ern, whose lights should guide, whose promises should console their less distin- guished 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 Univer- sal. But if this be conceded, it will signify but very little, or (to speak more boldly, perhaps, but not less accurately) it will be a circumstance altogether in- significant, whether the instruction afforded be oral or epistolary ; whether the government be carried on by the authority of a present lawgiver, or through the medium of rescripts bearing his seal, and, no less than his personal man- dates, compulsory on the obedience of the faithful. In eveiy government, whether human or divine, the amanuensis of a sovereign is an agent of his will, no less ordinary and effectual than his herald : and St. Paul both might and did lay claim to an equal deference when, in the name and on the 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 Christians, by the writings of the inspired person when absent, as by his actual presence and preaching. And if St. Paul, having once by divine authority, 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 im- possible ; yet still, so long as the instructions 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 Ghost through the writings of his chosen ser- vant. But that authority wliich 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 vmtings, I need hardly observe, is of an official, not of a personal nature.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 69

" for books are not absolutely dead things, but do contain a pro- geny of life in them to be as active as that soul whose progeny they are ; nay, they do preserve, as in a vial, the purest efficacy and extraction of that living intellect that bred them. A good book is the precious lifeblood of a master-spirit, embalmed and treasured up on purpose to a life beyond life." It is in the re- cords which they left that we now find the spirit of inspiration ; there is his abode, there the place of his supreme illumination, and in these books, consequently, Christianity must be sought in its purity and vigor.

The other promise pledges the assistance of Christ to those who preach the truth. It is a standing encouragement to all ministers that, in faithfully dispensing the word of God according to the law and the testimony, their labor should not be in vain in the Lord. Our Saviour had previously given a command, to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. The prospect of success in the fulfilment of this solemn injunc- tion, from the condition of society, the prejudices of the Jews, the philosophy of the Greeks, and the superstition of the Ro-

It does not consist in their having emanated from Peter or James or John, ab- stractly 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 rever- ence their communications as the latest edicts of the Paraclete ; and we believe all further communications to have ceased for a time ; not because those emi- nent servants of God have long since gone to their reward, for it were as easy for the Holy Spirit to raise up other 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 indifferent to the welfare of the Church, for this would be in utter contradiction to the gracious assurance of our Saviour ; but because suffi- cient light has been already afforded for the government of our hopes and tem- pers ; and because no subsequent question has occurred for which 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 incumbered 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,Us the vicar and successor of Christ, to manifest his protecting care of Christianity."

70 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

mans, was far from encouraging. To support their faith and quicken their hopes, their ascending Saviour pledged His al- mighty power to make His truth effectual, in bringing down lofty imaginations, and subduing the hearts of men in captivity to His cross. The promise in that passage is not that they should speak the truth, and nothing but the truth, but that in speaking the truth, in preaching whatever He had commanded. He would be with them always, even to the end of the world ; and this prom- ise has never failed.

Your letter contains a few incidental statements, introduced 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 ordination ! 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 labors of your infallible teachers. Sir, the world loveth its own, and it is characteristic of the hroad road that leads to death, that thousands are journeying its downward course. Mahomet laid the foundations of an em- pire, which, in the course of eighty years, extended farther than the Eqman arms, for eight hundred years, had been able to spread the jurisdiction of the Csesars. In this comparatively short space of time, there were brought under the sway of the Crescent the Grecian, Persian, and Mogul States, with many others of inferior importance; and yet Mahometanism, not- withstanding its unparalleled success, was a gross system of imposture and fraud. The purity of a system is not to be de- termined by the multitudes that embrace it. How significant is the question of our Saviour: When the Son of man cometh

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 71

shall he find faith on the earth ? Fear not, little flock, it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

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 faithful 1 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 sufferings upon men, have shed more human blood, have invented 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 systems of superstition and oppression that have ever ap- peared in the world, from the fall of man to the present day. To Papal Rome the foul pre-eminence of cruelty must unques- tionably 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 have 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 habita- tions of cruelty, these dark corners of the earth, with the means of grace and the elements of salvation. 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 infallible body exists, you next proceed to show us that it must be coin- posed of the pastors and teachers of your own communion. This part of your argument need not detain me long, as I have clearly refuted your proofs of the existence of such a body. Still if it did exist, the mere claim of Rome would not establish

72 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

her pretensions to be received as an unerring tribunal of faith. Theudas and Judas each claimed to be the promised Messiah of the Jews. Mahomet 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 dis- tinctions of truth and falsehood, of virtue and vice, be preserved among men ?

I have now, sir, sufficiently reviewed your pretended proofs of the infallibility of Rome as a witness for the truth, and have shown them to be alike ridiculous and vain. You have given us the true value of your argument, in saying that it would con- vince an infant mind. It may be adapted to children and idiots, but it is ill suited to bearded men. Perhaps one reason why you are so anxious to establish schools for Protestant children and erect asylums for Protestant orphans, while you suffiar starv- ing millions of your own flock to live by begging, and die in ignorance, is to be found in the secret conviction which you feel that your only hope of success is among those who cannot discriminate between legitimate reasoning and puerile sophisms. You are conscious, sir, of your total incompetency to encounter men, and therefore devote your ghostly attention to silly women and prattling babes.

Letter V

Historical difficulties in the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

The infallibility of the Papal Church is a doctrine so mo- mentous in its consequences, as to deserve a more extended view than a simple refutation of the arguments by which you have endeavored to support it. This, sir, is the ngoixov ipsvdog of your system — the foundation of those enormous corruptions in doc- trine, and abuses in discipline, by which you have enslaved the consciences of men, and transmuted the pure and glorious gos- pel of Christ into a dark and malignant superstition, which,

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 73

through fear of your- malediction, keeps its deluded victims in bondage in this world, and, from the certain 7nalcdiction of God, dooms them to perdition in the world to come. Your preten- sions 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 imagi- nation, or which avarice and ambition have found it convenient to present to the world as the offspring of truth, must still be de- fended, and still carried out into all their legitimate results. The impositions which you practised in an age of darkness, must now be justified in an 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 totters 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, there- fore, of infallibility, 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 the chambers of your imagery disclosed, and darker abominations will be re- vealed than those which the prophet beheld in the temple of the Lord at Jerusalem.

In pretending to the distinguished prerogative of infallibility, there is a prodigious and astonishing contrast between the weak- ness of your proofs and the extravagance of your claims. It seems that you act upon the principle by which Tertullian once sup- ported a palpable absurdity, and resolve to believe it, because, un- der the circumstances of the case, it is absolutely imjjossihlc that it can be true.

74 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOH THE

The ordinary arguments which your writers are accustomed to adduce, proceed upon a principle radically false. They reason from expediency to fact, and because an infallible tribunal is supposed to be a. pjwper appointment for suppressing heresy and terminating controversy in matters of faith, it is rashly inferred that such a tribunal has been actually established. The incon- sistency of such an arrangement with that peculiar probation which the moral government of God involves ; in which our characters are tested, our principles developed, and the real in- clinations of the heart made manifest; a probation which ne- cessarily supposes temptations, dangers and trials, both in appre- hending 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, for arriving at certainty upon the truths of the Gospel, is per- fectly consistent. The truth is committed to written documents — the reception of those documents depends 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 condition 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 impart 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 understanding is as really tested as the heart — or rather the dispositions of the heart — the moral character of the man is really exhibited by his dealings with the truth. There is in the first instance no overwhelming evidence whicp 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 vis- ibly vicious, but not less really depraved, nor more truly virtuous. There is no portentous sign from heaven which startles the skep- tic 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

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 75

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 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 he 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 ab- solutely terminating controversies and settling questions of faith without regard to the moral sympathies of men. Upon the sup- position, 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 pre- text be afforded to the sophist ; by which, in fact, the light ac- tually 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 argument from expediency is certainly as strong in favor of individual infallibility as in favor 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 accomplished. 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 the deciding of controver- sies, to have, besides an infallible rule to go by, a living, infallible judge to de- termine 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 excel- lent purposes, that all the patriarchs should be infallible, than that the pope only should? Another, that it v^^ould be yet more useful that all the archbishops of every province should be so, than that the patriarchs only should be so. Anoth- er, that it would be yet more useful, if all the bishops of every diocese were so. Another, that it would be yet more available that all the parsons of every

76 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

The method of reasoning, consequently, from expediency to fact is fallacious and unsafe : and if the magnificent pretensions of your sect rest upon no firmer basis than deceitful notions of utility and convenience, they are indeed built upon 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 infallibility is exercised or manifested. This single circumstance is enough to involve the whole claim in contempt. If it be not infallibly cer- tain where the infallible tribunal is, in case of emergency, to be found, the old logical maxim applies with undiminished force, de non apparentihus et non existentihus eadem est ratio. To settle controversies, it is not enough that a judge exists, his ex- istence 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 remove our difficulties, some of your Doctors refer us to the Pope as the vicar of Christ, the 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

parish should be so. Another, that it would be yet more excellent" if all the fathers of families were so. And, lastly, another, that it were much more to be desired that every man and every woman were so: just as much as the pre- vention of controversies is better than the decision of them, and the prevention of heresies better than the condemnation of them ; and upon this ground, con- clude by your own very consequence, that not only a general council, not 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 sense and experience, then must also the ground be false from which it evidently and undeniably follows, viz., that the course of dealing with men seems always more fit to Divine Prov- idence, which seems more fit to human reason." — Chillingworth, vol. i. p. 249. Oxford Edition of 1838.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 77

controls the members of the body. Hence your bishops are no- thing 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 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 worthless, excited too much controversy to be speedily forgotten — " as in a disciplined 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 Cath- olic 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, whilst the whole hocly is subordinate to one supreme pastor, whose seat is the rallying-point and centre of them all." In this exquisite system of slavery, the Pope is evidently the sovereign authority — the vi'hole body is subordinate to him, and as the centre and rallying point of the whole, whatever infallibility the church possesses must be found in the person of her supreme pastor. 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 up unchecked until it terminates in the Sovereign Pontiff at RoniP, whose edicts and decrees, by necessary consequence, none can question, and who is, therefore, 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 infallibility with councils — with the body of the pastors at large, or give the pope an ultimate veto upon the decisions of ecumenical 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, which we are told by intel-

78 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

ligent travellers, prevails in Italy — " the pope is greater than God."*

It is evident that the infallibility of the pope cannot be sepa- rated from his claim to supremacy. To prove that he is not supreme, is, in other words, to prove that he is not infallible. Now to those who maintain that the infallible authority of the church is to be sought in the person of his Holiness, this his- torical difficulty arises : Where 1 where was that infalli- bility before a Supreme Pastor existed ? It is a fact sustained by the amplest testimony that as late, at least, as the seventh century, the Bishops of the Church, not excepting the Bishops of Rome, whatever accidental differences prevailed among them, were regarded at least as officially equal. According to Jerome, erery Bishop, whether of Rome, Eugubium, Constantinople, Rhegium, Alexandria, or Tanis, possessed the same merit and the same Priesthood. f " There is but one bishopric in the Church," says Cyprian — " and every bishop has an undivided portion in it,"J 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 complying; forasmuch as every bishop, according to the liberty and power that is granted him, is free to act as he sees fit ; and can no more be judged by others, than he can judge them. But let us all expect the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who only hath power both to invest us with the government of his Church, and to pass sentence upon our actions."

* " II papa e piu che Dio per noi altri." — For a remarkable account of the extravagant adulation which has been heaped upon the Popes, see Erasmus on 1 Tim. 1. G.

t Epist. 85, ad Evang. — Ubicunque fuerit Episcopus, sive Romae, sive Eugubii, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhegii, sive Alexandriae, sive Tanis, ejus- dem meriti, ejusdem est et Sacerdotii.

t De Unitat. Eccles. Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis in solidum par s tenetur.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 79

But an authority which ought to be decisive on this question 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 whatever.*

Durinof these six centuries in which the Church was without a visible head, when there was neither centre of unity nor rally- ing-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 necessity of maintaining, either that there was then no infallible tribunal at all, or that it has since been trans- ferred from its ancient seat to the person of the pope. If the latter alternative 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 absolute 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.t

The theory which lodges infallibility with general councils is pressed with historical difficulties just as strong as those which lie against the infallibility of the Pope. If you except the Synod at Jerusalem, in the age of the Apostles, which can hardly be called ecumenical or general, there was no such thing as a gen- eral 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 indus-

* Epist. lib. vi. epist. 30. — Ego fidenter dico, quod quisquis se Universalem Sacerdotem vocat velvocaii desiderat, in elatione sua, Antichristum praecurrit. I affirm with confidence that whosoever calls himself, or wishes to be called, universal Bishop, in this lifting up of himself is the forerunner of Antichrist.

t See his Epistle to Pope Stephen charging him both with error and schism .

80 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

triously 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 supreme, and which by a single word was competent to crush these growing delusions? Why did the Fathers ply so strenuously the strong arguments of Scriptural truth, the words and teachings of prophets and apostles, if there was indeed a stronger argument to which they might resort, and from whose decision there was no appeal ? A judge that ne- glects 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 attri- buted the authority of the canons which they settled to the sanc- tion o^ the Emperor. They pretended to no infallible jurisdic- tion ; their decrees were not set forth as the word of God ; the veto of the Emperor destroyed them ; his favor made them obligatory, as far as his power extended.* Were the Apostles thus helpless without the imperial sanction 1 Did their instruc- tions acquire the force of Divine laws from the favor of Nero, or the patronage of the Caesars? If the councils were as infallible as the Apostles, why did they not proclaim their edicts in the na7ne of God, and, whether the Emperors approved or condemned, maintain their absolute power to bind the conscience by the au- thority of Christ ? These councils were evidently expedients of peace, adopted by the government as well as by the church, for the purpose of securing uniformity of faith, and preventing reli- gious 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 infallible whose convocation and decisions have not alike received the sanction of the Pope. These per-

* See Barrow, Suprera. Pope, and passages referred to, Suppos. 6.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND RKPUTED, 81

sons 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 dif- ferent quarters of the globe by his own sovereign authority,*

If, as a last desperate resort against all these historical objec- tions, 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 prevailed, and how, in refer- ence 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 understanding. It proceeds upon the wholly gratu- itous assumption, that nothing important has ever been denied, or nothing evidently true has ever been questioned. The his- tory 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 opin- ions and venerable institutions, while others less important are protected from insult by their acknowledged insignificance. Such is the weakness of humanity that fame is often more pre- cious than truth, and he 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 labor 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 approbation, 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 sustains. It is much more natural to suppose that the most important truths, should be the

* See Barrow, Suprem. Popp, and passages referred to, Suppoa. 6.

5

8^ ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

subjects of the fiercest contentions — that ambitious churchmen who had been defeated in their views of personal aggrandize- ment, should endeavor to wreak their vengeance, and gratify their vanity, by aiming 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 at- tacking the very foundation of the faith. The extent to which prejudice, mere prejudice, prevailed in the controversies of the Iconoclasts and Monothelites, is an amusing commentary on the harmony of priests in fundamental doctrines ; and there is an instance on record of a famous interpreter, who confessedly dis- torted a passage of Scripture from its just and obvious meaning, because the leader of another sect had endorsed it in his com- mentaries. A man, consequently, who should act upon the fa- mous maxim, quod semper, quod tibique, quod ab omnibus, in the formation of his creed, and resolve to admit nothing as infallible truth which had not the mark of universal consent, might con- dense his articles, in a very narrow compass. Not a single dis- tinctive feature of revelation, upon this absurd hypothesis, would be regarded as an essential element of faith. The plenary inspi- ration of the Scriptures has been confessedly denied by distin- guished divines — whole books of the Bible have been ruthlessly discarded from the canon, and even Popes themselves are said to have treated the history of Jesus as a gainful fable. It is im- portant, therefore, to believe nothing about the inspiration of the Scriptures. The doctrine of the Trinity has been bitterly as- sailed, 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, ac- cording to the maxim in question, without any opinion of the

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 83

Saviour at all. Nay, the very being of God may be lawfully discarded from a creed collected in this way, since the succes- sors of the Fisherman, 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 pas- tors of the church, therefore, is a mere phantom of the brain always mocking our efforts to compass it, and retreating be- fore us like the verge of the horizon. It is " vox et prseterea 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 a testimony that embraces all the priests that have ever said or sung the services of the Church, from the age of the Apostles to the period of his own ex- istence? To achieve such a task would require a critical appa- ratus hardly less formidable than that which you pronounce to be essential to the settlement of the canon.

I have now reviewed the leading theories in resrard to the seat of the infallibility of your church which have been maintained among you, and have shown them to be encompassed with histo- rical difficulties fatal to their truth. There is one general ob- jection 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 in- dubitably certain that Popes have contradicted Popes, Councils have contradicted Councils, and Pastors have contradicted Pas- tors, and all have contradicted the Scriptures. Notwithstandino- 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 histori- cally true, that you have exhibited at different periods such variety of tenets, as to render you wonderfully like the adminis- tration of Lord Chatham, as inimitably described by Burke. Your syntagma confcssioniim would 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 with-

84 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

out 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 unani- mously decreeing the removal of images, and the abolition of image-worship, and the Council of Nice re-establishing both, and pronouncing an anathema on all who had concurred in the pre- vious decision. The second Council of Ephesus approved and sanctioned the impiety of Eutyches, and the Council of Chalce- don condemned it. The fourth Council of Lateran asserted the doctrine of a physical change in the eucharistic elements, in ex- press contradiction to the teachings of the primitive church, and the evident declarations of the Apostles of the Lord. The sec- ond Council of Orange gave its sanction to some of the leading doctrines of the school of Augustine, and the Council of Trent threv/ the Church into the arms of Pelagius. Thus, at different periods, every type of doctrine has prevailed in the bosom of an unchangeable Church. She has been distracted with every variety of sect, tormented with every kind of controversy, con- vulsed with every species of heresy, and at last has settled down upon a platform which annihilates the word of God — denounces the doctrines of Christ and his Apostles, and bars the gates of salvation against men.

That the Scriptures, and not the Priesthood or any infallible 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 maybe deemed a suf- ficient exposition of the views of the Fathers : " Look not," says Chrysostom, " for any other teacher — you have the oracles ofGod, no one can teach like them. Any other instructor may, from some

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 85

erroneous principle, conceal from you many things of the greatest importance; and, therefore, I exhort you to procure for your- selves 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 Scrip- ture."t ** It is the duty of hearers," he observes again, *' when they have been instructed in the Scriptures, 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.' "| " With- out the word," says Clemens Alexandrinus, " all religious investi- gation 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 Apostles ? For God Himself testifies that those things which are written 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 whatso- ever 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 presumption, to prefer the tradition of men to the Divine ordinance, without considering that God is angry and provoked 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

* See also Chrysostom's 3d Horn, de Laz. The truth is, a volume might be collected from this Father in support of my position.

t Moral Reg. 2G. X Ibid. 72.

^ Admon. to the Gentiles. || Epist. 74, Pompcio.

86 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

Apostles ; and the Holy Spirit, in moving these chosen ambassa- dors 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 his- tory shows the priesthood of Rome is not — a safe, wise, adequate, successful provision against the error and change-making ten- dency of man.

I need not add, that this appears to be the uniform doctrine of the Scriptures themselves ; not only do they assert 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 teach- incr, might be fully apprehended. He proceeds upon the just and natural principle, that written documents presented a safer channel for the transmission of truth than verbal tradition. Peter, when about to put off his mortal tabernacle, makes provision for perpetuating the faith, after his decease, by writing his Second Epistle. Here was 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 icritten memorials were the true security for preserving entire Apostolical instructions.* But the grand and fatal objection to the doctrine

* " The claim of infallibility, or even authority, to prescribe magisterially to the opinions and consciences of men, whether in an individual or in assem- blies 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 Roman Pontiff. Had it been the in- tention 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 decisions in all points of doctrine, faith and prac- tice, should be oracular and final, this was the occasion for the Apostle to have

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND llEFUTED. 87

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 supported. To exempt a single individual, or any body of men, from the possibility of error, is the exclusive prerogative of God. It depends upon Him, therefore, and upon Him alone, to declare whether He has granted this distinction 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 ^Divine revela- tion. This is the sort of evidence which the case requires, and without this evidence all such pretensions are vain, delusive, ar- rogant, and blasphemous. Abstract reasoning can avail no- thing; 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 we cannot be assured that the Scriptures are divinely inspired, until we are assured that the decisions of the Church are infallible. It would be, then, most preposterous in them to remand us to the Scriptures to prove their claims, when the only authenticity they ascribe to

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 understood. And from St. Peter, in particular, of all the Apostles, this informa- tion was in all reason to be expected, if, as the vain tradition goes, this oracular gift was to be lodged with his successors. This, too, was the time when the mention of the thing was most Hkely to occur to the Apostle'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 faithfully 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 might naturally lead him to mention all means of in- struction 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 Roman Bishops. On the contrary, he overthrow.^ their aspiring claims by doing that which supersedes the supposed necessity of any such institution ; he lays down a plain rule, which, judiciously npplied, may ena- ble every private Christian to interpret the written oracles of prophecy, in all points of general importance, for himself" — Horsely's Sermons, vol. i. Serm. 15.

B8 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

the Scriptures 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 propo- sition— either that the Pope, in his official relations, is an infalli- ble expounder of the faith, or that general councils are unerring in their decisions, or that the whole body of pastors shall be pre- served inviolably from error. On the contrary, we are distinctly told that Peter played the hypocrite and was rebuked by Paul, and the Ephesian elders are solemnly assured that from even among themselves, among the very teachers of the Church, grievous wolves should arise, not sparing the flock. And the voice of all history — though the Bible says nothing specifically about them, as never contemplating such a phenomenon — the voice of all his- tory 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 commissioned to proclaim this truth, and to seal his commission by miraculous achievements? Where has the voice of God ever commanded us to submit to Rome as His representative and vicar ? Where are the Divine credentials of Papal infallibility 1 Until these questions are satisfactorily answered, Rome must be viewed in the light of an impostor, assuming to herself that su- preme deference which is due exclusively to the Spirit of God. Her pretensions must be regarded as the offspring of fraud, en- gendered by am.bition and nurtured by interest, which none can acknowledge 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.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 89

Letter VI

The doctrine of Papal Infallibility the Parent of 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 credentials of a Divine commission, is to encourage a despotism which none can sanc- tion 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 determined 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 preten- sions 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 distinctions of truth and falsehood, and laying the foundations of a skepticism more ma- lignant and desolating than the worst calamities which can pos- sibly result from the free and unhampered indulgence of private opinion. As extremes are so intimately connected, that the least touch of the pencil can translate expressions of joy into symp- toms of sorrow, so those who seek to remove the occasions of difference, to terminate schism, extinguish controversy, and es- tablish religion 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 which has, in reality, a striking and inevitable tendency to conduct the mind to a dreary and hopeless Pyrrhonism. There can be no assur- ance of truth, without a corresponding confidence in our facul- ties; the light which we enjoy — the 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 con- tent to receive the information of his senses, the reports of his

5*

90 ROMANIST ARGUJVIENTS FOR THE

consciousness, and the evident conclusions of his own mind, de- duced in conformity 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 refuses to take upon trust what the very constitution of his nature inclines him to be- lieve, must rest content with the cheerless prospect of perpetual ignorance.

There can be no knowledge without previous belief, deter- mined by the law of our nature, and liable to no suspicious of deception, because ultimately resolvable into the veracity of God. There are certain primary convictions — certain original princi- ples, as Aristotle calls them, through which we know and believe every thing else, and which must, therefore, themselves be re- ceived with paramount certainty. These instinctive elements of natural faith constitute 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 enjoyment. As the stability of external nature responds harmoniously to our in- stinctive belief of the uniformity of its laws, so all the elements of faith which enter into the essential constitution of the mind, are as admirably and unerringly adapted to their appropriate objects. Whatever, consequently, has a tendency to unsettle a man's con- fidence 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 confounded, and the ele- ments of life and death promiscuously mingled. To bring the different powers of the soul 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 foun- dations of knowledge — to annihilate all certainty — to reduce truth and falsehood to a common insignificance, and expose the mind to endless perplexity, confusion, and despair. Now this is pre-

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 91

cisely the result which the Church of Rome accomplishes in the minds of those who are foolish enough to receive her as an infal- lible teacher, and her instructions as infallible truth. She sub- verts the original constitution of the mind — contradicts the pri- mary 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 fre- quently 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 con- sistent, he must follow his guide, because, according to the terms of the hypothesis, the guide is infallible, and consequently, dis- trust the strongest convictions of his own understanding. If, in such clear cases, the reason 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 reo-ard 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 appearances from the real illuminations of truth ? Is it not evident that they must always be children in understanding, shrivelled up in intellectual dwarf- ishness 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 dog-

* *' Our knowledge rests ultimately on certain facts of consciousness, which as primitive, and consequently incomprehensible, are given less in the form of cognitions than of beliefs. But if consciousness in its last analysis — in other words, if our primary experience be a faith, the reality of our knowledge turns on the veracity of our generative beliefs. As ultimate, the quality of these be-

93 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

matist, and by making the same principles conduce to contradic- tory results, she virtually pronounces truth to be impossible, and " reduces knowledge to zero." The doctrine of transubstanti-

liefs cannot be inferred ; their truth, however, is in the first instance to be pre- sumed. As given and possessed, they must stand good until refuted ; neganti incumbit prohatio. Intelligence cannot gratuitously annihilate itself; nature is not to be assumed to work in vain ; nor the Author of nature to create only to

deceive.

^rijir] 6^ ovTTOTC ira^irav a-KoWvTai rjvriva rravrcg

A.aoi (prifjii^uvai, Qsov pv ri tffri kui avrrj.

" But though the tmth of our instinctive faiths must originally be admitted, their falsehood may subsequently be established : this, however, only through themselves — only on the ground of their reciprocal contradiction. Is this con- tradiction proved, the edifice of our knowledge is undermined ; for ' 720 lie is of the truth.'

" Consciousness is to the philosopher what the Bible is to the theologian. Both are professedly revelations of Divine truth ; both exclusively supply the constitutive elements of knowledge, and the regulative standard of its construc- tion. Each may be disproved, but disproved only by itself. If one or other reveal facts, which, as mutually repugnant, cannot but be false, the authenticity of that revelation is invalidated ; and the criticism which signalizes this self- refutation, has, in either case, been able to convert assurance into skepticism — * to turn the tnith of God into a lie,' —

Et violare fidem primam, et convellere tota Fundamenta quibus nixatur vita salusque. — Lucret.

" As psychology is only a developed consciousness, the positive pliilosopher has thus a prunary presumption in favor of the elements out of which his system is constructed ; while the skeptic, or negative philosopher, must be content to argue back to the falsehood of those elements, from the impossibility which the dog- matist may experience, in combining them into the harmony of truth. For truth is one ; and the end of philosophy is the intuition of unity. Skepticism is not an original or independent method ; it is the coiTelative and consequent of dogmatism ; and so far from being an enemy to truth, it arises only from a false philosophy, as its indication and its cure. Alte dubitat qui altius credit. The skeptic must not himself establish, but from the dogmatist accept his principles ; and his conclusion is only a reduction of philosophy to zero, on the hypothesis of the doctrine from which his premises are borrowed. Are the principles which a peculiar system involves, convicted of contradiction ; or, are these principles proved repugnant to others, which, as facts of consciousness, every positive philosophy must admit ; then is established a relative skepticism, or xhe conclusion, that philosophy, so far as realized in this system, is groundless. Again, are the principles, which, as facts of consciousness, philosophy in gen- eral must comprehend, found exclusive of each other ; there is established an

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 1)3

ation, for instance, cannot be admitted without involving in un- certainty the information of our senses, and rendering doubtful the only evidence upon which all our conceptions of the pheno- mena of matter must ultimately depend. Upon the authority of Rome we are required to believe, that what our senses pronounce to be bread — that 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 material — 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 impressions of color, of touch, and of taste, be just as delu- sive as those which deceive us in reference to this bread ? There can be no other evidence of any sensible phenomena than is possessed of the fact that the wafer is bread; and if this evi-

absolute skepticls?n ; — the impossibility of all philosophy is involved in the ne- gation of the one criterion of truth. Our statement may be reduced to a dilem- ma. Either the facts of consciousness can be reconciled, or they cannot. If fhey cannot, knowledge absolutely is impossible, and every system of philosophy therefore false. If they can, no system which supposes their inconsistency can pretend to truth. As a legitimate skeptic, Hume could not assail the founda- tions of knowledge in themselves. His reasoning is from their subsequent con- tradiction to their original falsehood ; and his premises, not established by him- self, are accepted only as principles universally conceded in the previous schools of philosophy. On the assumption, that what was thus unanimously admitted by philosophers, must be admitted of philosophy itself, his argument against the certainty of knowledge was triumphant. Philosophers agreed in rejecting cer- tain primitive beliefs of consciousness as false, and in usurping others as true. If consciousness, however, were confessed to yield a lying evidence in one par- ticular, it could not be adduced as a creditable witness at all ; — falsus in uno, talsus in omnibus. But as the reality of our knowledge necessarily rests on the assumed veracity of consciousness, it thus rests on an assumption implicitly- admitted by all systems of philosophy to be legitimate.

" Faciunt, nae, intelligendo, ut nihil intelligant." — Edinburgh Beview,yo\. li. pp. 196,7.

94 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

dence is fallacious and uncertain, the existence of matter may be a chimeraj or the speculation of Spinoza may not be unsound, that only one substance obtains in the universe, and that sub- stance 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 sub- ject to suspicion ; the measures of truth are involved in per- plexity, and man is set afloat upon the boundless sea of specula- tion, without chart, compass, 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 uncertainty of every thing 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 can- not 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 infalli- bility of the Church ; if our prim art/ convictions 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 community have no real belief in any of the distinctive doctrines of religion. Hence, too, the chair of St. Peter has been so frequently filled by those who despised every principle embraced in the noble confession of that distinguished Apostle. Leo X., John XXIII., and Clement VII., Cardinal Bembo, Ficinus, Politian, Pomponatius, Portius, Aretin, and a host of others, distinguished alike by their offices and attainments, in the very heart of the papal dominions, are as renowned in the annals of atheism, as in the history of reli- gious hypocrisy.

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 same time

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 95

philosophically false.* In other words, they maintained that truth might consist with open contradictions, which is equiva- lent to saying that its existence was impossible, or, at least, in- conceivable. There can be no doubt that the speculations of the schoolmen prepared the way for the extensive desolations of what has been called philosophical infidelityt in modern times,

* " The subtle doctors of the schools not only explained the mysteries of re- ligion in a manner conformable to the principles of their presumptuous logic, and modified them according to the dictates of their imperfect reason, but also pro- pagated the most impious sentiments and tenets concerning the Supreme Being, the material world, the origin of the universe, and the nature of the soul. And when it was objected to these sentiments and tenets that they were in direct contradiction to the genius of Christianity and to the express doctrines of Scripture, these scholastic quibblers had recourse for a reply, or rather, for a method of escape, to that perfidious distinction which has frequently been em- ployed by modem deists, that these tenets were philosophically true and con- formable to right reason, but that they were indeed theologically false and con- trary to the orthodox faith." — Mosh. Cent. 13, pt. ii.c. 3.

t Many valuable hints concerning the connection betwixt the scholastic phi- losophy, 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, v/as to subvert the 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, haue-crunt. Hoc bene notavit .Tansenius {August, tom. ii. proem, lib. cap. 28). Scholastici, inquit, nimio philosophiae amore quasi ebrii, arcana ilia mysteria gratia sepulta, deletaque secundum humanae rationis reg- ulas eruere, penetrare, formare, judicare, voluerant. Hinc ille ardor de quolibet disputandi, quidlibet eorum in dubium revocandi. Hinc eorum theologia innu- merabilium opinionum farragine referta est, per quas fere omnia, quantum- cunque contraria, facta sunt probabilia ; quae secundum eorum pronuntiafa, cuilibet tueri licet. Ita vix quicquam certi, praeter fideni, formandarum opin- ionum novarum promptitudo reliquum fecit. Pracipitii enim poena, suspen- dium ci:o')^r) hoc est, temeritatis omsis hesitantia et incertitudo. Nihil enim naturalius et vicinius quam ut homines ex Peripateticis fiant Academic!, quo- rum illi, sublucente ratiuncula,sententiam extemplo precipitant ; hi, temeritatis ducti, poenitentia, semper hesitant ; et nunc hoc, nunc illud, animo fluctuante, displicit, placet ; unde fit ut quod eis hodie probabile est, eras falsum judicetur." — Galai Philos. General, par. ii. lib. i. c. 4.

96 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

and just as little doubt that the violence which is offered by the creed of Rome to the original principles of human belief, intro- duced the schoolmen into those curious refinements of perverse dialects, which effectually destroyed the unity of truth, but with- out which they were compelled to abandon the infallible dicta of an arrogant community. Modern infidelity, in all its forms, is much more intimately connected with the influence of the papacy than seems to be generally apprehended. From the very nature of the case. Popery must be the parent of skepticism — and the dogmas of Rome cannot be admitted without making a double standard of truth, and destroying all its consistency and har- mony. Those, however, who are not prepared for the dreary shades of unmitigated skepticism, will much prefer the legiti- mate conclusions of their own understanding, to the wretched tattle of the papal Priesthood. Fully assured that a standard of truth, in reality, exists, uniform and stable, they can never be- lieve 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 contra- dict the universal bias of mankind, is sufficient to show that they are blind leaders of the blind, and that instead of having a com- mission from heaven, they derive their claims from the father of lies. God Himself, in His acknowledged revelations, 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 expostulations with the Jews, our Saviour evidently assumes the absolute 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 revelation could be possibly authenticated without as- suming 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 perceptions are to be called into question, or involved in uncertainty. Any pre-

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 97

tended teacher, therefore, who does not authentieate his claims to Divine authority by performing miracles, which 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 falsehood, 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 undertakes 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, was equal to the evidence of sense or consciousness, the mind would then be involved in that state of contradiction in which it is impossible to form an opinion — the teacher and our nature, like two negatives in Eng- lish, would destroy each other, and our real faith would be ex- pressed 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 honor 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 perverse dispositions, from stubborn prejudices, impetuous passions, or pride of understanding, there may be some founda- tion for the plea — but when they lie in the very nature of the evidence, he that commends his faith on such oround, glories in the fact that his assent is strong just in proportion as the evi- dence is weak, and amounts to absolute certainty when, upon the most favorable 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 triumph of devout respect for the author- ity of God, that he really believes that bread and wine are trans- formed into the person of his glorious Redeemer, the accidents of bread and wine remaining still unchanged.* But then it is

* Trent inichcs that hv thf consecratioji of (lie bread and wine the whole

9S ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

impossible that the evidence in favor of this supposition can ever be stroncrer 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 constitution of the human mind, «s throucfh a general Council of the Roman Church. To say, therefore, that we honor 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 disreo"ard His first revelation through the reason of man. Transubstantiation is not a mystery, but an absurdity — not a difficulty, but a contradiction — not something which transcends the lecritimate province of reason, but a fact which is repugnant to every principle of human belief — a fact which no man can receive without denying the paramount authority of those ele- mentary truths which are implanted in our nature, as the germ of all subsequent knowledge and philosophy — 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 requir- ing 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 — to believe the certainty of sense, in order to substantiate the infallibility of the Church, which ultimately rests on the divine commission of Christ, as established by miracles addressed to the senses, and acknowledged by them to be indisputable facts — to

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 substance of his blood (Sess. XIII. chap. 4) ; 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. 3). Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, says the Council in chap. 1, is truly, reallv, and substantially contained in the pure sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, and under the species ©f those sensible objects.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 99

deny the certainty of sense in order to sustain 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 Divine Redeemer. How such egregious trifling with the intellectual nature of mankind differs from the false philosophy of Hume, in its legitimate effects and inevitable 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 without ceasing to be a man, nor subscribe to the infallible dogmas of that apos- tate community, without virtually inculcating that truth is a fic- tion, and evidence " of all our vanities, the motliest, 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 coincidence be- twixt 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 positive 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 which 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 happily ought to look to three things ; first, how things are in themselves ; secondly, in what relation man stands to them ; and lastly, what will be the inevitable conse- quence of such relations." The followers of this blind and in- fatuated guide called into question the veracity of the senses, and endeavored to show that there 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 with certainty any real existence 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 propositions were to be thrown into the form of questions, not that the an- swers could ever be determined, but that the uncertainty of

100 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

knowledge might be clearly indicated, and the vacancy of the mind distinctly acknowledged. This fluctuating state of opin- ion, 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 em- brace 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 was allowed to be real, the anxieties of hope, the perturbations of fear, and all the inquietude of pas- sion, were suppressed by the removal of the causes which pro- duce 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 com- pletely at war with their speculative doctrines. They recom- mended 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 re- jected 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 affairs — 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 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 investigation of truth is the proper employ- ment of the human understanding — the possession of truth con- stitutes its wealth — the love of truth its glory — and sympathy with truth its health and vigor. A greater curse cannot, conse- quently, 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 admit- ted— something cherished and loved. To deny that there are any principles in any department of human inquiry on which

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND RKFUTED. 101

we may repose with confidence and safety, is to reduce man to a condition of torpor which nature cannot 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 law- less pleasure, and gratify its lusts with unrestrained licentious- ness. The sophists are the 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 in- fluence 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 skepticism 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 skepticism, 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. Instead of being the representative of Christ, who came to bear witness to the truth, she stands on the same platform with Pyrrhonists, So- phists, Atheists and Epicureans. Hence we should not be sur- prised 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 inves- tigation as idle and argument 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 annoyances 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 authority for saying that Rome has found it convenient to envelope truth in obscurity, in order tliat she might promote her own aggrandizement without molestation or disturbance. Nothing, indeed, can more strik- ingly illustrate her indifference to truth, and the steady zeal

J 02 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

with which she pursues her purposes of pride, than her shameful policy in reference to books. Her expurgatory and prohibitory indexes embrace the choicest monuments of learning — her sons are debarred 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 candor to the in- terests of the hierarchy, have been rudely enrolled on the list of proscription. Dupin, DeThou, 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 suppressed, silenced, and condemned, lest the slumbers of the people should be broken — the sun of righteousness arise — and the frauds and impostures of an arro- gant community exposed to the gaze of day. She can 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 restraints upon the freedom of the press.* Till the unhallowed usurpa-

* " 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, authorized by the Patriarch of Venice ; and 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 translated, to sell or dispose of them, unless admitted to be sold by certain doctors and masters of the univer- sity of Erfurt. In 1501, Pope Alexander VI. published a Bull prohibiting any books to be printed without the approbation of the Archbishops of Cologne, Mentz, Tiers, and Magdeburg, or their Vicars-General, or officials in spirituals, in those respective provinces. The year following, Ferdinand and Isabella, sovereigns of Spain, publi-shed a royal ordinance charging the Presidents of the Chancellaries of Valladolid and Ciudad Real, and the Archbishops of Toledo, Seville, and Grenada, and the Bishops of Burgos, Salamanca, and Zamora, with every thing relative to the examination, censure, impression, importation, and sale of books. In the Council of I/ateran, held under Leo X.,in 151.5, it was

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 103

tions of Rome had devised the expedient of suppressing thought by preventing its propagation, " books," says Milton, " were ever as freely admitted into the world 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 in- tellectual offspring ; but if it proved a monster, who denies but that it was justly burnt or sunk into the sea? But that a book, in 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 colleagues, 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, soughi out new limbos and new hells wherein

decreed that no book should be printed at Rome, nor in other cities and dio- ceses, 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." — Townlet/s Essays on various subjects, i^c.

The above extract has been taken from Mendham's Literary Policy of the Church of Rome — a work which condenses much rare and valuable informa- tion, illustrating the savage ferocity of Popes and Councils in reference to the independent productions of the human mind. The infamous 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 hun- dred 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 whatever one chooses " — (deterrima ilia ac nunquam satis execranda et detestabilis libertas artis librariae ad scripta quaelibet edenda in vulgus) and the Letter of Cardinal Barthelemi Pacca, dated August 16, lt:32, addressed to the Abbe de Mennais, which may be regarded as an authoritative exposition of the Encyclical Letter itself, condemns the doc- trines of the Avinci — a periodical publication which exerted great influence at the time, in reference to freedom of religion, and the freedom of the press. Lib- eral sentiments on these subjects the Cardinal declares to be highly reprehen- sible, inconsistent alike with the doctrines, the maxhns, 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 Mennais, entitled the Words of a Believer. This document far surpasses, in the violence of its tyran- nical principles, the Encyclical Letter of August 15. These facts show what Rome now is. I allude to them now incidentally, as I shall have occasion hereafter to notice them more fnllv.

104 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

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 enlargement 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 victorious — these are the shifts and de- fences 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 — untar- nished by the smoke and dust of the collision, she shakes her in- vincible locks, and, like a strong man, refreshed by reason of wine, rejoices to run her race. That cause which is propped by prohibitions and anathemas — which appoints spiritual midwives to slay the man-children born into the world — which, like kings, is stronger in legions than in arguments, bears a shrewd pre- sumption 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 stupendous 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 arro- gant 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 prom- ise to give us infallible assurance, and end by instructing 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 web we weave, When first we practice to deceive."

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 105

Letter VII

Papal Infallibility shown to be conducive to licentiousness and immorality.

Any system of philosophy or religion which sanctions the mutability of moral distinctions, or introduces a fluctuating standard of duty, is fatal to the highest interests of man. Truth and virtue, the most important objects of sublunary pursuit, are alike unchanging and eternal. The moral and intellectual natures of men are so intimately connected, their mutual dependence so nicely adjusted, their action and reaction so perfect and complete, that confusion of understanding is always accompanied with cor- responding lubricity of principle, and he whose perceptions of truth are not remarkable for clearness and precision will, most surely, be distinguished by an equal obscurity in his conceptions of rectitude. The moral duties which we are required to per- form are first contemplated as speculative principles, whose truth must be submitted to the decision of reason before they can be received as authoritative laws whose precepts we are bound to obey. The truth of right is an inquiry necessarily prior in the order of nature to the obligation of right. The conviction of the understanding must Tilways precede the sanction of con- science. Hence those philosophers are not to be rashly con- demned who attribute to the same faculty of the mind the power of distinguishing betwixt right and wrong, which, it is confessed, distinguishes betwixt truth and falsehood. The men- tal processes are so nearly identical, that it seems to be an unne- cessary multiplication of original powers to have a peculiar un- derstanding conversant only about moral truth, while another understanding is admitted to exist which deals in truth of every other kind. Oar faculties, which are only convenient names for the various operations of a simple and indivisible substance, de- rive their appellations not from the specific differences of the ob- jects about which they are employed, but from their general nature. The discovery of truth is as much an end to the moral philosopher who is seeking to determine the standard of duty, and to settle what ought to he, as well as what is, as it is to the phy-

6

106 ROMANEST ARGUMENTS FOK THK

sical inquirer whose investigations cannot be legitimately pushed beyond the province of existing phenomena. The same laws of evidence, the same original principles, the same elements of human belief, and the same process of patient induction, are, or ought to be, common to both, and can no more be discarded with impunity by the one than they can by the other. Hence -a variable or fluctuating standard of truth necessarily introduces a variable and fluctuating standard of morals — whatever system legitimates error, to the same extent legitimates crime — whatever blinds the understanding, corrupts the heart. The moral nature is always involved in the same ruin with the intellectual consti- tution. Rude and barbarous nations are as much indebted to imbecility of reason, superinduced by neglect of cultivation or false associations, for their mistaken apprehensions of good and evil, as to depravity of taste or perverseness of moral sensibility. Their deeds of darkness are performed without compunctious visitings of conscience, not because that messenger of God slum- bers in the breast, or is bribed by the sinner to hold its peace, but because that light is extino-uished, without which it is im- possible to recognize the authority of law. The moral affections can no more expand nor take root downwards and bear fruit up- wards while the understanding — the true sun of the intellectual system — is veiled in darkness, than the plants and herbage of nature can flourish in beauty and luxuriance without the genial light of the day. The sense of obligation is always just in pro- portion to the enlargement of the mind with liberal views of the relations of mankind ; and although the knoivlcdge of the right does not necessarily secure its practice, it does secure, what is of vast importance to society, remorse to the guilty, and a homage of respect to the good. He that acknowledges a legitimate standard of moral obligation will find in his conscience a check to those crimes, which, through weakness, he is unable to suppress — a restraint upon those passions, which, through frailty, cannot be subdued. The transgressor who violates rules of unques- tioned authority, which his own understanding has received as right, will assuredly drive tranquillity from his bosom and repose from his couch. He sins, indeed, but without that moral hardi- hood which attaches to those who, in their blindness and igno-

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED A^JD REFUTED. 107

ranee, put light for darkness, and bitter for sweet. They are the most dangerous offenders who tamper with the principles of rectitude itself, who seek to escape the reproaches of conscience by degrading the standard of moral obligation — who pursue peace at the expense of truth, and extinguish the light that they may not behold the calamity of their state. The abandoned condition of the Gentile world, which the Apostle so graphically describes in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, is ultimately traced to the vanity of their thoughts, and the dark- ness of their minds, and those to whom the gospel is hid, have their minds *' blinded by the god of this world, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who isrthe image of God, should shine unto them," and " reveal the glory of the Lord " by the contemplation of which they might be transformed *' into the same image from glory to glory." The love of speculative truth, and integrity of purpose, are graces of character so closely affi- liated— they are so evidently the offspring of the same general condition of the mind, that he who aspires to the praise of hon- esty, must not forget the necessity of candor, and he who would adorn his heart with the highest excellence of which it is suscep- tible, must enrich his understanding with corresponding posses- sions. The love of truth is honesty of reason, as the love of virtue is honesty of heart ; and so impossible is it to cultivate the moral affections at the expense of the understanding, that they who receive not the truth in the love of it, are threatened in the Scriptures with the most awful malediction that can befall a sinner in his sublunary state : an eclipse of the soul and a blight upon the heart, which are the certain forerunners of the second death. There is hope of reformation so long as the principles remain uncorrupted, but when the light which is in us is con- verted into darkness — when lies are greedily embraced and errors deliberately justified, the climax of guilt has been reached, the ruin of the character is complete, and the perdition of the soul, without a stupendous miracle of grace, seems to be inevita- ble. Shame and remorse, the usual channels throuorh which amendment is produced, are always the result of consciousness of error — an affection which is utterly inconsistent with that

108 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

complete degradation of the mind to which thousands have been sunk, and in which error is neither lamented nor admitted.

From the intimate alliance which subsists betwixt the stand- ard of truth, and the standard of morality, it follows as a neces- sary consequence, that skepticism is fatal to the interests of virtue. It destroys the immutahility of moral distinctions ; makes duty dependent upon circumstances ; or rather, denies the reality of duty apart from convictions of utility or pleasure. He who trifles with the constitution of his nature in those primary con- victions which lie at the foundation of all knowledge and philo- sophy, is cherishing a temper w^hich shall soon rise in rebellion against the authority of conscience, and extinguish the only light that can convict him of crime. From the obscurity and con- fusion which have shrouded the understanding, may be antici- pated a deeper gloom which is soon to settle on the heart. Spec- ulation must ultimately end in practice, and if the w^aters are poisoned at the fountain, death must be expected to overspread the land. That the moral conduct of skeptics has not always been answerable to the looseness of their principles, is not to be ascribed to a redeeming virtue in the principles themselves, but to the restraints of society, and to the voice of nature, which skepticism had not been able to suppress. The tendency exists, though accidental hinderances have retarded its development. Doubts about tnith and evidence will conduct to doubts about rectitude and sin; and he who shall finally conclude that truth is unattainable, must be a fool if he still believes that virtue is obligatory. These remarks, though they appear to me to be intuitively obvious, are felt to be necessary in order to rebuke the growing impression that speculative principles have no imme- diate influence in regulating conduct. We live in an age of sophists: a man may believe anything or nothing; and yet if his actions are consistent with the standard of public decency, his principles are not to be condemned, his doctrines not to be assailed. If, however, there exist in the bosom of the Almighty an eternal standard of truth, from which the law of righteousness proceeds, in conformity with w-hicb the arrangements of Provi- dence are conducted, the relations of things adjusted, and by which alone the harmony of the world can be effectually pro-

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 109

moted, the first step towards communion with the Father of lights is to recognize that standard. The mind cannot move in charity nor rest in Providence, unless it turn upon the poles of truth. ''The inquiry of truth," says Bacon, *' which is the love-making or wooing of it; the knowledge of truth, which is the presence of it ; and the belief of truth, which is the enjoying of it, is the sovereign good of human nature. The first creature of God, in the work of the days, was the light of sense; the last was the light of reason; and His Sabbath-work ever since, is the illumi- nation of His Spirit."

In inculcating, therefore, a spirit of skepticism, and denying a permanent standard of truth, the Church of Rome impeaches the immutability of moral distinctions, and declares herself to be a child of the devil, and an enemy of all righteousness. She unsettles the foundations 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 impossible to establish an unchanging standard of moral obliga- tion ; and as she evidently begins in Pyrrhonism, she must neces- sarily end in Epicureanism, The enormous corruptions of the clergy which provoked the 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 skepticism which Romanism must engender among all who reflect upon the foundations of knowledge or the nature of evi- dence. They wtxQ i\ie hitter fruit of her graceless pretensions 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 the 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

110 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

supreme object of pursuit. That is right, according to the phi- losophy of Rome, which 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 Scriptures, divide mankind into two great classes; but the righteous, ac- cording 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, imprisonment and death. Moral accomplishments are nothing, in her eye, as she acknowledges no standard of duty, which does not award to her the sublime posi- tion 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 Hildebrande, be firebrands of hell — like John, the beastly impersonations of lust ; yet all is right — they are the salt of the earth, the excellent ones in whom Rome takes delight, if they prefer her interests above their chief joy. The supremacy of homage and affection which she claims for herself, places her on the throne of the Eternal, and regulates the standard of morality according to the measures which are best adapted to promote her authority, and 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 perfections of God his standard of rectitude, is certainly in unison with all that we know of that vast system of government, embracing the universe, and com- passing 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

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. Ill

whole system of morality is a sordid calculation of interest — their duties are feudal services — and the solemn sanctions of relicrioji are only introduced to give currency and success to their nefarious frauds. Wealth and power are the watchwords of the hierarchy. The visible and invisible worlds are alike the sources of their merchandise ; souls are their spoils, and the patronage of sin the ultimate issue of their policy. The doc- trine of indulgencies, the practice of auricular confession, the system of penances, the invention of purgatory, and the detes- table principle of private masses, are only links in a chain of despotism, 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 saga- gacity to the secular aggrandizement of the clergy.* Every doc-

* '• What can we think of redeeming souls out of purgatory, or preserving 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 hood- wink 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 humor 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, wiih a word, perform the most astonishing thing that ever was." — Burnet^ Hist. Rpf.

" Of all the contrivances to enthral mankind, and to usurp the entire com- mand 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 was their duty to come and reveal to them every thing which they had done, and every thing which they meant to do, would not be credible if it were not proved by the fact. This circumstance rendered the 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 two objects they chieJJy •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 weak-

112 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

trine 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 scales of ambition and avarice. Expediency, in its most enlar^red acceptation, is a dangerous test of moral obligation, but when restricted to the contemptible ends which the papacy contemplates; when all the duties of mankind are measured by the interests, the secular interests, of a wicked corporation, we may rest assured that the most detestable vices will pass unre- buked, 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 binding the conscience. She professes to wield the authority ofGod, and her injunctions, audacious as they are, she has the moral effrontery to proclaim in the name of the Most High. She consequently is, at once, a lawgiver and a judge- Truth is what she declares, and righteousness is what she approves. Such stupendous claims on the part of ignorant, errincr, and sinful mortals as ourselves, must exert a disastrous influence on the purity of morals, and sanctify the filthy dreams of men, as the inspired revelations of the Father of truth. It is

ness, sickness, and at the hour of death, they obtained great and numerous be- quests 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." — Villevs on Reform.

The doctrine of private masses is one of the worst corruptions of the Rom- ish 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 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 hier- archy, 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 11,800 masses which he never said. We are informed of a Church in Venice, in 1743, that was in arrears for 16,400 mnssfs. 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 blinded, infatuated papists. What a stupendous system for accu- mulating power and wealth in the hands of the clergy !

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 113

impossible, under such circumstances, but, that interest should be made the ultimate standard of propriety, and the whole moral order of the universe involved in corresponding confusion, by making that which ought never to be an 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 casuists, 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 purpose of their lives; and their code of morality is based upon the principles which support the foundation of the Papal throne. In the Jesuits, consequently, we behold the le- gitimate effects of the Papal system — in them it is unrestrained by the voice of nature, the authority of conscience, or venera- tion for God. They are Pajn'sts — pure, genuine, unadulterated Papists; they have endeavored to divest themselves of every quality which is not in unison with the authority of Rome ; 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 Ro- manism 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, relations, 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 which subsists between licen- tiousness and skepticism. There is not a single distinctive feature of Jesuitism which may not be justified by the necessary tendencies of the acknowledged principles of Rome.* These men have embodied the spirit of the Church ; they have digested its doctrines into order ; they have reduced its enormities to

* " One cannot condemn the Jesuits without condemning at the same time the whole ancient school of tlie Roman Church." — Claudes Defence of the Eeformation. The proofs are furnished in connection with the passage.

6*

114 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

logical consistency, and held up 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 in- delible characters on its front, the synagogue of Satan. Hence, the papal guardians of the press, in their zeal to stem the tor- rent of falsehood and repress the spread of dangerous specula- tions, while they have eviscerated the Fathers, prohibited the writings of the early reformers, and condemned the most pre- cious 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 — systems formed in accordance with the doctrines of Molina have free circulation where Locke, Cudworth, and Bacon are not permited 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 adminis- ter the sacraments? Pius VII., in allusion to the Jesuits, and in vindication of his odious conduct in turning them loose to deso- late society, states *' he would deem it a great crime towards God, if, amidst the dangers of the Christian republic, he should neglect to employ the aids which the special providence 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 princi- ples. It is not their superior zeal, but the superior pliancy of their consciences, which have made them such " vigorous and ex- perienced rowers," and in condescending to accept their labors, 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 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,

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 1J5

justice, and humanity, is necessarily implied in the decree of the Council of Lateran, that no oaths are binding — that to keep them is perjury rather than fidelity — which conflict with the ad- vantage of the Catholic Church. What fraud have the Jesuits ever recommended or committed, that can exceed in iniquity the bloody proceedings of the Council of Constance, in reference to Huss ? What spirit have they ever breathed more deeply im- bued 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 re- servations. 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 the 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 reservation, and probability— which are so thoroughly and completely 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 only consistent exponents of Romish doctrine ; and should that Church ever rise to its former ascendancy 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 vindiate 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 wedding them more completely to the interests of the Church,

* 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, &c., because you believed that m so doing, you were right." For a popufar exposition of the morality of the Jesuits, the reader is referred to Pascal's Provincial Letters with Nichole's Notes

116 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

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 pleasure in drawing the sickening picture of their de- pravity! The moral condition of Europe, at the time of the Re- formation, 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 Papal infallibility. That apostate community com- menced its career by unsettling the standards of truth and know- ledge. Skepticism prepared the way for licentiousness. When the standard of truth was o-one, 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, be- came 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 VIII

Papal Infallibility, proved to be the patron of Superstition and Will-worship.

When our Saviour declared to the woman of Samaria, God is a spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth, he announced in this sublime proposition the just dis- tinction between pure aud undefiled religion and the various forms of superstition, idolatry, and will-worship. That the high- est 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 had interrupted, to transform man again into the image of his Maker, and to fit his nature to receive communications of Divine love, is the scope and purpose of the Christian Revelation. Harmonious fellowship with God necessarily presupposes a know- ledge of His character ; [being an interchange of friendship which cannot be conceived when the parties are strangers to

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 117

each other.] Hence the foundation of religion must be laid in a just (though from the nature of the case, it must be inade- quate) conception of the attributes of Deity, a proper apprehen- sion 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 ex- tremes of true religion, b.")th equally founded in ignorance of God, though under different forms of application, are superstiton, and atheism. From atheism, which, as it dispenses with the sanctions of decency and morality, is a prolific fountain of bit- terness and death, proceed the waters of infidelity, blasphemy, 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 apostacy, the Church of Rome is at once the patron of atheism and the parent of superstition. f Intent upon nothing

* Plutarch and Bacon. Both have drawn the contrast between atheism and superstition, and both have expressed the opinion that atheism is the more harmless of the two. Warburton, in his Divine Legation, has reviewed the sentiments of both, with his usual ability and force.

t That I am not singular in ascribing to the same cause, in diflferent aspects, such opposite effects, will be seen from the following passages in works which have very few points of coincidence.

" For infidelity and superstition are, for the most part, near allies, as pro- ceeding from the same weakness of judgment, or some corruption of heart. Those guilty fears and apprehensions of an avenging Deity, which drive some persons into superstition, do as naturally drive others of a more hard and stub- born temper into infidelity or atheism. The same causes, working 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." — Wa- terland's Works, p. 58.

" Atheism and superstition are of the same origin : they both have their 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 princi-

118 ^ ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

but her own aggrandizement, she asks of men only the decen- cies of external homage, and^.so they are content to swell her train and increase her power, it is a matter of comparative in- difference whether they acknowledge the existence of God, rev- erence His truth, love His character, or yield obedience to His laws. Her arbitrary pretensions to infallible authority disgust the intelligent; and while, like the heathen philosophers and the pagan priests, who occupied a higher form of knowledge than pertained to the vulgar, they silently acquiesce in existing insti- tutions, 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 the true religion — every 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 impression that the souls of the departed preserve their interest in sublunary things. t This sense is evi- dently embraced in the wider meaning of religious excess : and

pies of the true religion, or have not afterwards continued to be strictly edu- cated in the same, are all in great danger of falling either into the one or the other, according to the difference there is in the temperament and complexion they are of, the circumstances they are in, the company they converse vi^ith." — Sec- ond part of the Fable of the Bees, p. 374.

* " Quando in cultu ultra modum legitimum allquid superest, sive quando cultus modum rectum superstat atque excedit." — Et]jmologicum.

"But the word" (superstition), says Waterland, '-properly imports any religious excesses, either as to matter, manner, or degree. There may be a superstitious awe, when it is wrong-placed, or of a wrong kind, or exceeds in measure ; and whenever we speak of a superstitious belief, or worship, or prac- tice, we always intend some kind of religious excess. Any false reHgion, or false part of a true one, is a species of superstition, because it is more than it should be, and betokens excess." — Waterland, Second Charge pt. ii. p. 57.

t Warburton gives a different explanation : " The Latin word, supersti- tio, 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, Heb. Edition.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 119

we may consequently adopt with safety the more general accep- tation which tiie first etymology naturally suggests.

The causes of superstition, as developed hy 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, weak- ness, cruelty and revenge, an essential element of this religious excess : Taylorf has copiously declaimed on fear as the fruit- ful 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 by the art- ful 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 proclaimed as expressions of the will of God. From the follies of mystics, the excesses of fa- natics, the legends of martyrs, 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 sim- plicity 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 re- semblance to the true religion which an ape bears to a man. To develope the corruptions of the papal hierarchy, whiclVstamp that Churchwith the impress of superstition, would be to tran- scribe its distinctive doctrines and peculiar practices. The range of discussion would be too vast for a limited essay. I shall

* Timor inanis deorum. Cic. Je. Nat. Deo. i. 42. t Vol. V. Sermon ix.

t Ecclesiast. Pohty, b. 5, chap. 3. The reader will find it an exquisite passage, but it is too long to introduce here.

§ Sermon upon Poppry, vol. iii., Works. •

120 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

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 aid- ing the conception and directing the worship of the Supreme Being. The pure and sublime idea which the Scriptures incul- cate 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 New Testaments, they deigned to appear is not to be deemed contrary to religion or the law of God." Accord- ingly the second commandment is annulled by the hierarchy-*- in books of popular devotion it is wholly suppressed — the win- dows of papal churches are frequently adorned with images of the Trinity, the breviaries and mass-books are embellished with en- gravings 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 fabulous creations of heathen poets, where centaurs, gor- gons, 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 per- sons are sometimes submitted to the devout contemplation of papal idolaters — is to give an idea of God from which an ancient

* See this subject fully and elaborately discussed in Gale's Court of the Gen- tiles, part 3, book iii. chap. 3.

Bishop Horsley says — " The Church of Rome is at this day a corrupt Church — a Church corrupted with idolatry : with idolatry very much the same in kind and in degree, with the worst that 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; Woiks, vol. ii. p. 289, See also Bp. Bull's Corruptions of the Church of Tinme.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 121

Roman or a modern Hindoo might turn away in disgust. Such gross and extravagant symbols, however carefully explained or allegoricully interpreted, involve a degradation of the Supreme Being, which it is impossible to reconcile with the sublime an- nouncement of our Saviour, that God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. The ador- ation which is paid lo the Deity under any corporeal figure or 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 su- perstition. It is quite certain, from the accounts of heathen phi- losophers and poets, that the images of their Gods were 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 it was treated was purely of that relative kind which the Romish doctors im- pute to the devotees of their own communion.* Pagan statues

* "Nor is it of any importance, whether they worship simply the idol, or God in the idol : it is always idolatry, when divine honors are paid to an idol, under any pretence whatsoever. And as God will not be worshipped in a super- stitious or idolatrous manner, whatever is conferred on idols, is taken from Him. Let this be considered by those 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 consid- ered 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 Avas 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 re- tained in their minds the same gods ; and there were many images for one god ; nor did they imagine to themselves gods in proportion to the multitude of images: besides, they daily consecrated new images, but without supposing that they made new gods. Read 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 worshipped not the visible figure, but the Divinity that invisibly dwelt in it. But they, whose re- ligion was, as he expresses himself, more refined, said, that they worshipped nei- ther the image, nor the Spirit represented by it : but that in the corporeal figure

122 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

and Romish pictures are due to the operation of the same prin- ciple— an attempt to accommodate the receding majesty of a spir- itual 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 commu- nion with the Father of spirits, seeks to gratify its religious aspi- rations by tangible objects around which its sympathies can read- ily cling. Unable to soar to the unapproachable light in which Deity dwells in mysterious sanctity — it spends its devotion upon humbler things, to which it imparts such divine associations as may seem, at least, to reconcile the worship w^ith the acknow- ledored 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 Be- ino- 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, impiety, blasphemy, and idolatry. The work of the cook, and the pro- duct of the vintage — bread and wine — the materials of food which pass through the stages of digestion and decay — are placed be- fore us, after having been submitted to the magical process of sa- cerdotal enchantment, as the eternal God, in the person of the incarnate Redeemer.* The eucharistic elements are not memo-

they beheld a sign of that which they ought to worship." Calvin's Inst. Kb. i. cap. 11, § 10. Upon this whole subject of theidolatry of the Church of Rome, the reader is referred to Archbishop Tenison's Discourse of Idolatry, particularly to chapters 10, 11, 12. That the heathens did not regard their images as gods, and that they worshipped them on the same principle vindicated by the papists, may be seen from Arnobius, Lactantius, Austin, and divers of the Fathers. A very interesting discussion of the nature and unlawfulness of image worship may be found in Taylor's Ductor Dubitantium book 2. 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.

* The reader may be amused with the following description of the scene when the bread and wine are about to be destroyed and the person of the Saviour pro-

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 123

rials of Christ, nor visible symbols of his love — they are, after the pretended consecration of the priest, the Son of God himself They are worshipped and adored, eaten and drunk, received into the stomach and passed into the bowels as the Creator, Preserver, and Saviour of mankind. The ancient Egyptians, in paying religious veneration to inferior animals, and to a cer- tain class of vegetables, regarded them as sacred, as we learn from Herodotus and Cicero, on account of their subservience to purposes of utility. They were considered as instruments of divine Providence — not as gods themselves — by which the inter- ests of husbandry were promoted, and noxious vermin were de- stroyed. 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 revolting, as that which is presented in the doctrine of the Mass? The infernal incantation of the witches in Macbeth, chantinop their awful dirges over the boiling caldron in which are mingled the elements of death, are to my mind less insupportably disgusting, less ter- rifically wicked, than the priests of Rome, pretending to subject

duced. It is taken from Bishop England's preface to his translation of the Ro- man Missal, p. 78.

'' We are now arrived at that part which is the most solemn, important, and interesting of the entire ; every thing hitherto had reference, remotely or proxi- mately, to the awful moment which approaches. For now the 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 sol- emn 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 perfonnance of that duty ; tapcr- bearei-s 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 mo- ment of the consecration, when the celebrant elevates th"; 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 which sur- round the throne of Him who comes to save a world, are seen dimly blazing through the clouds of perfumed smoke, which envelopes this mystic place."

124 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

the Saviour of the world, in cold-blood cruelty, and for purposes of hire, and that in increasing millions of instances, to the unut- terable agonies of Gethsemane and Calvary.

In tracing the origin of transubstantiation and the consequent absurdity of tiie Mass, we are struck with another coincidence between the practices and doctrines of Rome and the rites and customs of pagan antiquity. That the terms and phrases and peculiar ceremonies which were applied to the mysteries of the heathen superstition, have been transferred to the institutions of the Christian system, and have vitiated and corrupted the sa- craments of the gospel, is now generally admitted.* It is in the

* The following extract from Casaubon's 16th Exercitation on the Annals of Baronius, will sustain the assertion of the text :

" Pii patres, quum intelligerent, quo facilius ad veritatis amorem corruptas superstitione mentes traducerent ; et verba sacrorum illorura quamplurima, in suos usus transtulerunt ; et cum doctrinse verse capita aliquot sic tractarunt, turn ritus etiam nonnullos ejusmodi instituerunt ; ut videantur cum Paulo dicere gen-

tibus voluisse, a ayvowreg £V(Te/3eiT£,' ravra Karayyt^onEv vfiiv. Hinc igitur est, quod

sacramenta patres appellarunt mysteria, ^a-riaeis, T£\£Tas, rfXcfcoo-u?. eiro-reias, sive £TTOTp£iai, T£\£(TTr]pta ; interdum etiam, opyia, sed rarius ; peculiariter vero eucha- ristiam r£A£Twv T£\£Tr)v. Dicitur etiam antonomastice m jxvcrnpiov aut numero multitudinis ra jivarripia. Apud patres passim de sacra communione leges ippiKTa ixvarrjpia vel to £viToppr)Tov ^varripiov : Grcgorio Magno, ' magnum et pa- vendum mysterium.' Mv£ia9ai in vetemra monumentis saepae leges pro coenae dominicae fieri particeps : [ivrjaiv pro ipsa actione ; ^vcmg est sacerdos, qui etiam dicitur o i.ivarayu)ycjv et o i£poT£'X£arr]s. In liturgiis graecis et alibi etiam r] upa te'Sett] et /? Kpvfia Kat £TTi(p3/3og Tc^ern et eucharistia. Quemadmodum autem gradus quidem in mysteriis paganicis servati sunt, sic Dionysius universam rwv teXbtcov rrjv i£povytav traditionem sacramentorum distinguit in tres acliones, quae et ritibus et temporibus erant divisae ; prima est purgatio ; altera initiatio ; ter- tia consummatio. Spem meliorem morientibus attulisse mysteria Attica dicebat paulo ante M. Tullius. Patres, contra, certam salutem et vitam aeternam Christi mysteria digne percipientibus affere, confirmabant ; qui ilia contemnerent, ser- vari non posse ; finem vero et fructum ultimum sacramentorum, deificationem, dicere non dubitant, quum scirent vanarum superstitionem auctores, suis epoptes sum honorem audere spondere. Passim igitur legas apud patres, r??? lepai fjvara- ywyiag t£}^os £ivai Oeicjctip, finem sacramentorum esse, ut qui vera fide ilia per- ciperent, in futura vita dii evadant. Athanasius verbo, Q£oiToi£iaQai in earn rem est usus ; quod mox ab eodem explicatur, participatione spiritus conjungimur deitate. De symbolis sacramentorum per quae divinse illae ceremoniae celebran- tur, nihil attinet hoc loco dicere ; illud vero quod est et appellatum fidei sym- bolum, diversi est generis et fidelibus tesserae usum praestat per quam se mutuo

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 125

teachings of heathen priests, in secret orgies of gross impiety, and flagrant indecency — and not in the instructions of Christ and

agnoscunt, qui pietati sacramento dixerunt ; cujus modi tesseras fuisse etiam in paganorum mysteriis ostendimus. Formulae illi in mysteries peragendis usur- patae, procul este profani, respondet in liturgia haec per diaconos pronuntiari solita ; omnes catechumeni, foras discedete, omnes possessi, omnes non initiati. Noctu ritus multi in mysteriis peregebantur ; noctu etiam initiatio Christian- orum inchoabatur ; GntiAeniio no\rdn<iXvir splendidissima nox vigiliarum. Quod autem dicebamus de silentio in sacris opertaneis servari a paginis solito, id in- stitutum veteres Christiani sic probarunt, ut religiosa ejus observatione mystas omnes longe superarint. Quemadmodum igitur dicit Seneca, sanctiora sacro- rum solis, initiatis fuisse nota, et Jamblichus de philosophia Pythagoreorum in Ta anoppriTa, quae efi'eri non poterant, et ra eiapopa, quae foras efl'ere jus erat ; ita nniversam doctrinam Christianam veteres, distinguebant in ra t.K<popa, id est, ea quae enuntiari apud omnes poterant,et ra uTroppriTa arcana temere non vulganda: inquit Basilius, dogmata silentio preniuntur,pr(Bconia publicantur. Chrysos- tomus de iis qui baptizantur pro mortuis : cupio quidem perspicue rem dicere ; sed propter non initiatos non andeo ; hi interpretatio nem reddunt difficiliorem ; dum 110S cogiint, aut perspicue non dicere, ant arcano, quce taceri dehent, apud ipsos efferre. Atque ut t^op^^ziaQai ra fivcrrripia dixerunt pagani, de iis qui ar- cana mysteriorum evulgabant ; ita dixit Dionysius, vide ne enunties aut parum revereuter habeas sancta sanctorum. Passsim apud Angustinum leges, sacra- mentum quod noriintfidelei. In Johannem tract, xi. autem sic : Omnes cate- chumeni jam credunt in nomine Christi. Sed Jesus non es credit iis. Mox, Interrogemus catechumenuni, Manducas carnem filii hominis ? nescit quid dic- imus. Iterum, Nescit catechumeni quid accipiant Christiani ; erubescant ergo quia nesciunt."

The pious fathers, perceiving that they could the more easily draw over to the love of the truth minds corrupted by superstition, both transferred to their own use a great many of the terms employed in their sacred rites, and so treat- ed certain articles of true doctrine, and instituted such rites, that they seem to have been willing, with Paul, to say to the Gentiles : " What ye ignorantly wor- ship, that we declare unto you." Hence it is, that the Fathers called the Sacra- ments mysteries, sometimes even orgies, though more rarely, but peculiarly the eucharist, the festival of festivals. In the Fathers, you will every where read such terms as these, applied to the sacred communion: The awful mysteries, the ineffable mystery ; in Gregory the Great, the great and dreadful mystery. In the language of the ancient documents, to be initiated into the mysteries, is to be a partaker of the Lord's supper. The act itself was called initiation, and the officiating priest was termed a mystagogue. In the Greek Liturgies, as also elsewhere, the Eucharist is called the holy festival, the secret and dread- ful festival. As there were degrees in the Pagan mysteries, so Dionysius dis- tinguishes the whole administration of sacraments into three actions, which were separate in rites and times: — 1. Purgation; 2. Initiation; 3. Consum-

126 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

his Apostles, that we are to look for the mysteries which, in the papal sect, envelop the seals of the Christian covenant. As the

mation. Tully said that the Attic mysteries brought a better hope to the dying. The Fathers, on the other hand, confidently affirmed that the mysteries of Christ brought certain salvation and eternal life to those who worthily appre- hended them — that those who despised them could not be saved — yea, they did not hesitate to assert, that the end and ultimate fruit of the sacraments was dei- fication, since they knew that the authors of vain superstition promised this honor to those admitted to their secret rites. You may constantly read among the Fathers, that the end of the sacraments is, that those who apprehend them with a true faith, may go into the future life as gods. Athanasius uses the word to he deified, in reference to this matter, and explains it to mean, that we are united to God by the participation of His Spirit. Of the symbols of the sacraments by which those divine ceremonies were celebrated, it is not our pur- pose to speak here. That which was called the symbol of faith, was of different kinds, and served as a token by which the faithful could mutually recognize each other. Tokens of this kind, we have shown, were used in the pagan mysteries. To that formula of the pagans in celebrating their mysteries — stand aloof, ye profane — corresponded in the liturgy these words usually pro- nounced by the deacons, — " All catechumens, all possessed, all uninitiated, retire out of doors." Many of the heathen rites were performed at night ; the initia- tion of Christians was also begun at night. It is called by Gaudentius the most splendid night of vigils. The silence observed by the pagans in their secret ceremonies, was so approved by the Christians, that in their religious ob- servation of it they far excelled the heathen priests. As Seneca says that the most holy of the sacred things were known to the initiated alone, and Jambli- chus divides the Pythagorean philosophy into the secret, which could not be uttered, and the public, which could be pioclahned, so the ancients distinguish the whole Christian doctrine, into the public, or that which might be announced to all, and the secret, which could not be promulged. Basil says, doctrines are pressed in silence, things that may be preached are published. Chrysostom says, speaking of those who are baptized for the dead, " I desire, indeed, to speak plainly, but on account of the uninitiated I dare not : these render the interpre- tation more difficult — since they compel us either not to speak perspicuously, or to reveal secrets which ought to be kept hid." As those among the pagans who published their secrets were said to mock the mysteries, so Dionysius says — " See that ye neither renounce nor lightly esteem these holy of holies." Au- gustin constantly speaks of the sacrament which " the faithful knew." In tract xi. on John, he says — " All catechumens now beUeve in the name of Christ, but Jesus does not trust himself to men." Again, — " Let us ask a catechumen, dost thou eat the flesh of the Son of Man \ he knows not what we say." Again, — " Catechumens know not what Christians receive — let them blush at their igno- rance."

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 127

progress of corruption is always downwards, what was beo-un in mystery ended in absurdity — the extravagant terms in which the fathers described the Sacrament of the supper in evident rivalry of the Eleusinian mysteries — the unnatural awe with which they invested a simple institution, led in after times to this form of idolatry, which transcended the follies of their pagan guides.

But in no part of the papal system is the spirit of Heathen- ism more completely carried out than in the respect and venera- tion which are paid to the persons and relics of the saints. The deification of distinguished benefactors was perhaps the last form in which ancient idolatry corrupted the objects of worship. The canonizations of Rome differ but little in their spirit and ten- dency from the apotheoses of antiquity. The records of martyr- dom have been explored, fabulous legends promoted into history, for the purpose of exalting to the rank and dignity of intercessors with the Father a host 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 martyrdom — the distinguished rewards which, in a future state, they confidently promised to those who should shed their blood for religion, combined with the assurance of correspond- ing honors 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 hun- dreds 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 commemorated 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 admiration, finally settled into feelings of devotion — these sacred heroes be- came invested with supernatural perfections — from mortal men, they imperceptibly grew, in the sentiments of the multitude, to the awful dignity of demigods and saviours — and finally received

128 ROJMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

that religious homage which was due exclusively to the King Eternal. The system of Rome as it stands to-day, having con- firmed the growing superstition of ages, is as completely a system of polytheism as that of ancient Egypt or Greece. The Virgin Mary 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 worthless evasion. Magnificent temples are created 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 mys- tery of religion, and the highest act of supreme adoration, the honor 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 appendages of their person are beheld with awful veneration or sought with incredi- ble avidity, being regarded as possessed of a charm like " the eye of newt 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 sanc- tify 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 following praj^er occurs .in the Ordinary of the Mass : " Receive, O Holy Trinity, this oblation which we make to Thee in memory of the Passion, Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in honor 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 available to their honor and our salvation : and may they vouchsafe to intercede for us in heaven, whose me- mory we celebrate on earth. Through the same Christ our Lord." — England's Translation of the Rom. 3Iiss. p. 281. Here Christ, the eternal Son of God, is distinctly said to be offered up in honor of all the saints. What can that man withhold from them who gives them his Saviour ] His heart surely is a small boon compared with this august oblation. And yet Trent has the auda- city to declare that they are not worshipped with homage truly Divine.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. ]29

the case of these privilged 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 unquestionably indicate more than mortal respect, may be added the vast importance which the wor- ship and creed of Rome attach to their pretended intercession. They execute a priestly function at the right hand of God, which it is hard to distinguish from the office of the Redeemer ; in fact, their performances in heaven seem to be designed to stimulate the lazy diligence of Christ, and to remind him of the wants of his children, which the absorbing contemplation of his own glory might otherwise exclude from his thoughts. It is the saints who keep us fresh in the memory of God and sustain our cause against the careless indifference 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 children, and ever liveth to make intercession for Ihem.

To these multiplied saints, in accordance with the true spirit of ancient Paganism, different departments of nature are intrust- ed, 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 fiieth at noonday. Some are gods of the hills, and others of the plains. Their worshippers, too, like the patrons of judicial 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 addition 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 resem- blances among objects precisely alike — for a difference of name, where no other discrepancies are discernible, is sufficient to es-

130 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

tablish a difference of things. The fatherly interest, the unceas- ing vigilance, the deep devotion with which these heavenly spirits superintend the affairs of the faithful, cannot be explained upon any principles which deny to them the essential attributes 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 believed to have achieved, are signal proofs that they are regarded as really and truly divine.* The nice distinc- tions of worship which the Church of Rome artfully endeavors to draw, for the purpose of evading the dreadful imputation of idol- atry, 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 subtlety of these refine- ments, is a violent presumption against them — and that the Greek from which they are extracted does not justify these nice- ties 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 anxious to inculcate under the terms dov- Xsia (dulia), vnsg-dovXsia (hyper-dulia), and XaTQsiu (latria).t

* The foiiowing may be taken as a specimen of the honor which is ascribed 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 was pleased to send blessed Patrick, thy bishop and confessor, to preach thy glory to the Gentiles, grant that by his inerHs and intercession 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 ask in his name (per eum) we may happily obtain by Thy grace." Festival of St. Peter's chair, at Rome, Collect : " Oh 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 honor, may obtain for us the pardon of our sins."

t They pretend that the reverence which they pay to images is Ei6(jj\ov'X£.ia (service of images), but deny that it is ciioXoi'XarpEia (worship of images). For

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 131

Whatever forced interpretations may be put upon the lano-uao-e of the Romish Breviaries in the prayers which are addressed to the other saints, the worship of the Virgin is evidently in the highest

in this manner they express themselves, when they maintain 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 the 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 them- selves under a Greek term, they contradict themselves in the most childish manner. For since the Greek word Aarpsveiv signifies nothing else but to worship, what they say is equivalent 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 endea- vors to raise a mist before 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 be two different things. Let tjieni 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 constrained 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 contriving, and their hands in forming visible symbols of the Deity." — Calvin's Inst., lib. i cap. xi. § 11.

The Apostles are addressed in the following hymn, as the dispensers alike of temporal and spiritual blessings to their earthly suppliants:

" Vos Sseculoruni Judices, Et vera mundi lumina, Votis precamur cordium ; Audite voces supplicum. Qui templacoeli clauditis Serasque verbo solvitis, Nos a reatu no.xios Solvi jubeto, qsesumus. Praecepta quorum protinus Languor salusque sentiunt Sanate mente languidas ; Augete nos virtutibus."

O you, true lights of human kind. And judges of the world designed, To you our hearty vows we show, Hear your petitioners below. The gates of heaven by your command Are fastened close or open stand j Grant, we beseech you, then, that we From sinful slavery may be free.

132 ROMANIST ARdUMENTS FOR THE

form of supreme adoration. She is not only invoked as being likely to prove a successful intercessor with the Saviour, but sol- emnly entreated to command her Son to answer the petitions of her servants.* She is exalted above all that is called God — " she

Sickness and health your power obey ; This comes, and that you diive 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.

* 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 honor 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 impu- dently spoken ? Is not he, rather, most impious and impudent that findeth 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 authorized 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. 1.31.)

" Solve vincli reis, Prefer lumen cfficis, Mala nostra pelle, Bona cuncta posce. Monstra te esse matrem, » Sumat perte preces

Q.ui 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. Thyself a mother show,

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 blessing, " Nos cum prole pia,bene- dicat Virgo Maria," which junction of the two names in this way must shock every true Christian : " May the Virgin Mary, with her 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,''

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 133

approaches" — according to Damiani, a celebrated divine of the eleventh century — "she approaches the golden tribunal of divine majesty, not askings but commanding, not a handmaid, but amis- tressJ' We are taught by Albertus Magnus, that " Mary prays as a daughter, requests as a sister, and commands as a mother." Another writer informs us that ''the blessed Virsfin, for the sal- vation 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, ' Monstra te esse matrem ;' as if saying to the Virgin — supplicate for us after the manner of a command and with a mother's authority. To her the character- istic titles of God, the peculiar offices of Christ, and the distinc- tive work of the Holy Spirit, are clearly and unblushingly as- cribed in approved formularies of Papal devotion,* If this be

" Mother of Mercy." " Mater gratiae, mater misericordiae, tu nos ab noste pro- tege et hora mortis suscipe." At p. 290, I find this recommendation to her: " O holy Mary, I recommend 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 wea- ried and disgusted, but I umst 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 .Tesus was gloriously risen from the dead, be a com- fort to my soul, and vouchsafe to help me with thine and God's only begotten Son, in that last day, when 1 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 perpetual damnation, and happily come to eternal joys with all the elect of God, Amen." It must be remembered, that it is not what might be disclaimed 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 practice 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 than Chris- tiani." — Serin, on Luke i. 48, 49.

* In addition to the proofs of this awful accusation furnished in the preced- ing note, I appeal to the Encyclical Letter of the Pope, dated August 15, 1832 :

134 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

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 case any real distinction between dovlua (dulia) and larQua (latria), the dovXsia (dulia) is rendered to God, and the laTQsin (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 se- verely 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 provi- dence; but that all the events of this sublunary state are single, insulated acts, arising from the humor of different beings, suggested, for the most part, by particular emergencies, and directed generally to mercenary ends. That it secured ** de- liverance from unnecessary terrors and exemption from false alarms," was one of the chief commendations of the lax philoso- phy of Epicurus, in which religion and superstition were, con- trary 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 por- tents.* To the minds of the people, who admitted a plurality of

" 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 Virgin, who was taken up to heaven ; that she , whom we have found our patroness and preserver in all our greatest calamities, may also be propitious to us whilst writing to you, and guide our mind by her heavenly inspiration to such counsels as shall be 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."

§ Hence Virgil says :

" Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas, Atque metus omnes, et inexorabile fatum Subjecit pedibus, strepitumque Acherontis avari." — Qeorg. 2, 490,

Happy the man who, studying nature's laws, Thro' known effects can trace the secret cause —

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 135

gods, possessed of different attributes and intent upon opposite designs, it was certainly impossible to communicate those en- larged conceptions of a harmonious scheme of Providence, car- ried on by the power of a superintending mind, which are only consistent with such views of the supremacy of one being, as the philosophers themselves 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 persua- sion that there is one God, who sitteth in the heavens, and whose counsel none can resist.

To suppose that different portions of the universe are assigned to the care of different Divinities, possessed themselves of con- tradictory qualities, and ruling their departments by contradic- tory laws, is to maintain, if the happiness of men consists in their favor, 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 dan- gers 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 cir- cumstances, men's lives must be passed in continual apprehen- sion. 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 territories of hostile princes — in which every event

His mind possessing in a quiet state, Fearless of fortune and resigned to Fate !

Speaking of religion, Lucretius says :

" Quae caput a ca'li regionibus ostendebat,

Ilorribili super aspectu mortalibus instans." — 1, 65.

RIankind long the tyrant power

Of superstition swayed, uplifting proud Her head to heaven, and with horrific limbs Brooding o'er earth. — Ooode^s Lticrctiud.

136 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

is a declaration of war, every appearance, whether common or accidental, 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 de- basing adulation, must be the abundant harvest of evils which is reaped from that ignorance of Divine Providence and the sta- bility 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 that the cause was not to be found, as he evidently thought, in the admission of Providence,* but in its virtual denial by as- cribing the course of the world to the distracting counsels of in- numerable 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 supersti- tion which heathen philosophers had the perspicacity to con- demn, which heathen poets, such as Horace, Virgil, and Lucretius, endeavored to escape by fleeing to the opposite extreme of irre- ligion, and which the very constitutiort 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

* " Caetera, quae fieri in terris cceloque tuentur

Mortales, pavidis cum pendent mentibus saepe, Efficiunt animos humiles formidine divum, Depressosque premunt ad terram ; propterea quod, Ignorantia causarum conferre deorum Cogit ad imperium res, et concedere regnum." — [6, 49.

Whate'er in heaven

In earth man sees mysterious, shakes his mind,

With sacred awe o'erwhehns 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. — Id.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 137

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, sulphurations and ablutions, which he indignantly charges upon the " Greeks, inventors of barbarian ills," are carried to a still more extravagant extent among the pupal inventors of worse than barbarian enormities. The people sit in darkness and the valley of the shadow of death. The heavens to them are redun- dant with omens, the earth is fraught with prodigies, the church is a magazine of charms, and the priests are potent and irresisti- ble wizards, who rule the course of nature and govern the des- tinies 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 Dacmonum, we have minute and specific directions for casting Devils out of the possessed, and for extracting from these lying spirits a veracious testimony to the distinctive doctrines of the papacy.* The holy water, the pas- chal wax, the consecrated oil, medals, swords, bells, and roses, hallowed upon the Sunday called La^tare Jerusalem, are charged with the power of conferring temporal benedictions and averting spiritual calamities. The Agnus Dei is a celebrated charm in the annals of Romish sorcery .t It possesses the power of ex-

* 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 spe- cimen of the black art.

t Urban V. sent three Agnos Dei to the Greek Emperor, with these verses: " Balsam, pure wax and chrism-liquor clear Rlake up this precious lamb I send thee here. All lightening 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 child-bed's pains and gives good speed Unto the birth. Great gifts it still doth win To all that wear it and ihat 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 be 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 establish the position of the text.

7*

138 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

pelling 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 unfrequently brought to the Priest to receive his blesssing, and we have approved for- mularies for charming the cattle and putting a spell upon the possessions of the faithful. Rome is indeed a powerful enchant- ress. Even the sacraments become Circaean mixtures in her hands, dispensing mysterious effects to all who receive them from her Priestly magicians ; being indeed a substitute for vir- tue, a complete exemption from the necessity of grace.!

The type of character and religious opinion, the pervading tone of sentiment and feeling, which any system produces on the mass of its votaries, is a just criterion of its real tendencies. The influence of a sect is not to be exclusively 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 particu- larly just in the case of Romanism, since the Priests possess unlimited control over the minds and consciences of their sub- jects. They are consequently responsible for the moral condi- tion, the religious observances, the customs and opinions of papal communities. Hence the system of Rome, in its practical operations, 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

* See the dialogues of St. Gregory and Bede. St. Fortunatus restored a broken thigh with holy water ; St. Malachias brought a madman to his senses by the same prescription ; and St. Hilarion healed divers of the sick with holy bread and oil. These are only specimens, and very moderate ones, of the le- gends of the Saints. The magic of Rome tunis the course of nature into a theatre of wonders.

t " Upon the Sacraments themselves," says Bishop Taylor, " they are taught 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 effectual by an inherent virtue, that they are not so much made the in- struments of virtue, as the suppletory ; not so much to increase as to make amends for the want of grace." — Works, vol. x. p. 241.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSS liD AND REFUTED. 139

people embodied in the life; its legitimate tendencies are re- duced to the test of actual experience ; we know what it is by beholding what it does. Tried by this standard, 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 etfects of sorcery, 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 ; en- velopes 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 influence of error. The picture which Taylor draws of the papal population of Ireland,* which Townsend gives of the bigoted peasantry

* I give a single speciDieu of the abject superstition of the Papists, upon the authority of .feremy Taylor. "■ But we have observed amongst the gene- rality of the Irish, such a declension of Christianity, so great a credulity 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 manners of swearing, 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, wliich they understand not, and reckon their beads to tell the number and the tale of their prayers, and abstain from eggs and flesh in Lent, and visit St. Patrick's well, and leave pins and ribands, yarn or thread in their holywells, and pray to God, St. Mary, St. Patrick, St. Columbanus,and St. Bridget, and desire to be buried with St. Frances' cord about them, and to fast on Saturdays, in honor of our lady. * * * I shall give one particular instance of their miserable superstition and blindness. I was lately, within a few months, very much troubled with petitions and earnest requests for restoring a bell, which a person of quality had in his hands at the time of, and

140 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

of Spain — the condition of the church in Silesia, 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 in the same principles, 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 eeonomy 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 page- antry 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,

ever since, the late rebellion. I could not guess at the reasons of their so gieat and violent importunity, but told the petitioners if they could prove that bell to be theirs, the gentleman was willing to pay the full value of it, though he 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, which made me diligently to inquire into the secret of it. The first cause I found, was that a dying person in the parish, desired to have it rung before him to church, and pretend- ed he could not die in peace if it were denied him ; 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 far- ther, 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 controveries by oath, which the worst men "durst not violate if they swore upon that bell, and the best men amongst them durst not but believe him ; that if this bell was nmg before the coi-pse to the grave, it would help him out of purgatory ; 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 what spirit of delusion these poor souls do lie, how infinitely their credulity is abused, how certainly they beheve in trifles and perfectly rely on vanity, and how little they regard the truths of God, and how not at all they drink of the waters of salvation." — Works, vol. x. p. 121, seg.

APOCRYPHA DISCIJSSKD AND REI-UTED. 141

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, stronger than the light of truth, to break the spell of spiritual enchantment which leads them on to death, to dissipate the deep delusions of priestly impoi-ture 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 superstitions may plead, to some extent, irremediable igno- rance for their errors, idolatries and crimes ; the way of right- eousness had never been revealed to them, but the Priests of Rome have no cloak for their wickedness; they have deliberately 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 consequentlv 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 re- quires 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 know- ledge 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 constant spirit of compliance with all his statutes and ordinances. It is indeed the spirit o^ love Viud o^ obedience, and both necessarily suppose that knoioledgc which is identified with faith, and pro-

142 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

ceeds 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 com- paring the worship which Rome prescribes, with that which the Gospel requires, they will be found to differ in every essential element of acceptable homage. The Gospel confines our wor- ship exclusively to God — Rome scatters it upon a thousand ob- jects whom she has exalted to the rank of Divinities. The Gos- pel directs that all our services should be oifered exclusively in the name of Christ — Rome has as many intercessors as gods, and as many mediators as Priests. The Gospel requires the affections of the heart, purified and prompted by the Holy Ghost — Rome prescribes beads and genuflexions, scourging and pil- grimages, fasts and penances, and particularly the magic of what she calls sacraments, which are an excellent substitute for grace. The object which the Gospel 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 object of Rom.e is to awaken emotions of mysterious awe, which shall ultimately redound to the advantage of the priesthood ; and hence her services are ex- clusively directed to the eye, the ear, and the fancy. If she suc- ceeds in reaching the imagination, and produces a due venera- tion for the gorgeous solemnities which pass before 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 apostacy. Imposing festi- vals, and magnificent processions, symbols and ceremonies, liba- tions 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."

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 143

Letter IX

Papal Infallibility proved to be unfriendly to civil government.

The extravagant pretensions of the Romish sect to the Divine prerogative of infallibility, are not only fatal to the inter- ests of truth, morality and religion, but equally destructive of the rights of magistrates, and the ends for which governments were instituted. To define the connexion which ought to subsist between church and state, to prescribe their mutual relations and subserviencies, and mark their points of separation and con- tact, 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, however, 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 cer- tainly 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 conducing to the success and stability of the state, are, perhaps, irresistible ; yet the atten- tive reader will perceive that none of his reasonings, however 7manstoerabbj they prove the value of the church and the need of its aid, establish the necessity of Vi federal alliance. The gratui- tous 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 sup- jjorted by the state. " The props and buttresses of secular autliority " 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 respect, that she can- not subsist without clasping about the elm of worldly strength and felicity." It is found from experience, however, and might be deduced from the nature 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 cor-

144 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

rupts and weakens spiritual authority — it debases the church into a secular institution, makes emolument and splendor more important objects than righteousness and truth, — defeats the ends for which it has been instituted — and, instead of adding weight to the laws of man, it 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 jurisdiction. The harmony of the spheres is preserved by the regularity and order with which they revolve in their appointed 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 purpose 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 Messed immortality ; the state is con- cerned 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 distinctive ends of government is to propagate the truths of religion, is to destroy the church as a separate institu- tion, and make it an appendage to the state. The administra- tion of religion under this view, becomes as completely a part of the government, as courts of justice or halls of legislation. In support of this extravagant Erastianism, it is gravely maintained that the state is really and truly a person — the proper subject of moral obligation, and, therefore, bound like every other person, to profess a religion. The legitimate consequence M-ould seem to be, if the state, as such, is capable of exercising religious af- fections, that it must also experience, in a future life, the rewards

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 145

of obedience, or the punishment of sin. Those who huve been accustomed to regard religion as a matter of personal faith and obedience, appealing to the consciences of private individuals, and not to the authority of kings and rulers, are slow to com- prehend the spiritual birth of nations, the salvation of organized communities, or their eternal perdition for impenitent hardness of heart.

The doctrine of Rome, on the mutual relations of the tempo- ral and spiritual power, leads to consequences as fatal to the liberty of states, as those of Warburton or Gladstone in the in- dependence, purity, and efficiency of the church. Three diffe- rent views have been taken of this subject by distinguished writers in the papal communion. The Canonists* and Jesuitsf

* For an amusing effort to effort to evade the claims of the Canon law, vide Gibert,vol. ii. pp. 511, 12.

t 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 virtue of the keys given to his holiness by Jesus Christ, hath power to depose heretical kings, princes, states, commonwealths and governments, all being 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 apos- tles 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 throughout the earth ; and that by the virtue of the keys of binding and loosing given to his holiness by my Sav- iour Jesus Christ, he hath power to depose heretical kings, princes, states, com- monwealths, and governments, all being illegal without his sacred confirmation, and that they may be safely destroyed ; therefore, to the utmost of my power, I shall and will defend this doctrine and his holiness' 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 Rome. I do renounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince, or state, named Protestant ; or obedience to any of their inferior magis- trates or officers. I do further declare, that the doctrines of the church of Eng- land, of the Calvinists, Huguenots, and of others of the name of Protestants, to be 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' agents, in any place wherever I shall be, in England,

146 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

for the most part, carrying out the idea that the Pope is the Vicar of God upon earth, clothe him with all the plenitude of power, in relation to sublunary things, which belongs to Deity Himself. It is his prerogative to fix the boundaries of nations, to appoint the habitations 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 H., passed in the council of Lyons, which, according to Bellarmin, represented, without doubt, the universal church, this extravagant pretension to absolute power is assumed.* At the close of the second session of the fifth coun-

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 regal or otherwise. I do further promise and declare, that notwithstanding I am dispensed to assume any religion heret- ical for the propagating of the mother church's interest, to keep secret and priv- ate all her agents' counsels from time to time, as they intrust me, and not to divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing, or circumstance, whatsoever ; but to execute all that shall be proposed, given in charge, or discovered unto me, by you my ghostly father, or by any of this sacred convent. 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 the 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 praemissis et compluribus aliis ejus nefandis excessibus, cum fratribus nostris, et sacro concilio deliberatione praehabita diligenti, cum Jesu Christi vices licet immeriti teneamus in terris, nobisque in beati Petri apostoli persona sit dictum : ' Quodcumque Hgaveris super terram &.C.' Me- moratum principem, qui se imperio et regnis omnique honore ac dignitate reddidat tarn indignum, quique propter suas iniquitates a Deo ne regnet vel im- peret est abjectus, suis ligatum peccatis, et abjectum, omnique honore et dignitate privatum a Domino ostendimus, denunciamus, ac nihilo minus sententiando privamus ; omnes, qui ei juramento fidelitatis tenentur adstricti, a juramento hujusmodi perpetuo absolventes ; autoritate apostolica firmiter inhibendo, ne quisquam de caetero sibi tamquam imperatori vel regi pareat vel intendat, et decernendo quoslibet, qui deinceps ei velut imperatori aut regi consilium vel auxilium prsestitirent seu favorem, ipso facto excommunicationis vinculo subja-

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. H7

cil of Lateran, an oration was delivered by Cajetan, which abounds in fulsome adulation of the Pope, representing him as the Vica?^ of the Oninipotent God, invested alike with temporal power and ecclesiastical authority, and exhorting him, in blas- phemous 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.*

cere. Illi autum ad quos in eodem imperio imperatoris spectat electio, eligant libere successorem. De praefato viro Siciliae regno providere curabimus, cum corundum fratrumnostrorum consilio,sicut viderimus expedire." — Labb. Concil. t. xi. p. 645.

We, therefore, on account of the aforesaid and numerous other abominable excesses of this man, do, with our brethren, and the sacred council, after diligent deliberation (seeing we, though undeserving, hold the place of Jesus Christ on earth, and that it was said to us in the person of the blessed apostle Peter " Whosoever thou shalt bind on earth, &,c."), declare the said Prince, who has proved himself so unworthy of all rule, power, and dignity, to be bound under his sins and an outcast, and deprived by the Lord of all honor and dignity • and all who are bound to him by oaths of fealty, we forever absolve from such oaths ; and, by our apostolical authority, we strictly forbid any from obeyinty him as emperor or king ; and all such as shall thus obey him, or show him anv aid or favor, are rendered, by that act, excommunicate ; — and they to whom the election of Emperor pertaineth, are hereby authorized freely to choose a successor, &,c.

* " Assequitur autem hoc, te volente, teque imperante, si tu ipse, pater sancte omnipotentis Dei cujus vices in terris non solum honore dignitatis, sed etiam studio voluntatis gerere debes : si ipsius Dei potentiam,perfectionem sap- ientiamque imitaberis. Atqui ut in primis potentiam imiteris, accingere, pater sancte, gladio tuo, tuo inquam accingere : binos enim habes unum tibi reliquis que hujus mundi principibus communem : alterum tibi proprium, atque ita tuum, ut ilium alius nemo nisi a te habere possit. Hoc itaque gladio tuo, qui ecclesiasticae potestatis est, accingere potentissime, et accingere super femur tuum, id est, super universes humani generis potestatis " — Labb. Concil, 1. 14, p. 75.

This the church shall obtain by thy will and command, if thou thyself, holy father, wouldst imitate the power, perfection and wisdom of the omnipotent God, whose part on earth you are bound to perform, not only in dignity and honor, but also in zealous will. But in order that thou mayst imitate his power, in the first place, gird, O holy father, gird, I say, thy sword upon thy thigh ; for two swords thou hast, one common to thee with the other princes of this world ; the other proper and peculiar to thyself, and so specially thine, that no other can have it but from thee. This, therefore, which is the sword of ecclesiastical power, gird, O thou most mighty, upon thy thigh, that is, upon all the poten- tates of the human race.

148 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

The Pontiffs, in their damnatory sentences, are particularly fond of quoting the words of Jeremiah, in accommodation to them- selves— " I have set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms," as well as the words 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 contro- versy betwixt Boniface VIIL and Philip the Fair,' the insolent Pontiff boldly asserted that "The King of France, with all other Kings and Princes whatsoever, were obliged, by a Divine com- mand, to submit to. the authority of the Popes, as well in all po- litical 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 two-fold power to the Church, or in other words the spiritual and temporal sword, and subjected the whole human race to the au- thority of the Roman Pontiff," whom they were bound to obey on pain of eternal damnation.*

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 decrees of Councils, which reaches the same practical results on grounds less flagrantly wicked, or detestably blasphemous. It is the opinion maintained by Baronius, Bel- larmin, Binius, Carranza, Perron, Turrecrema and Pighius, and abounding ad nauseam in the documents of Gregory VII. The Pope, according to these writers, is not absolute lord of the in- fidel world. His special jurisdiction is the guardianship and care of the church. In protecting his flock, however, from the en- ijroachments 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 commission from Heaven to provide for the welfare and prosperity of the church, and whatever powers may be found subservient to the fulfilment of this delegated trust, are indirectly vested in his

* Gibert Corpus Juris Canonici, vol. 2, p. 513, sums up the famous bull of Boniface VIIL, de majoritate et obedientia, in these pregnant words : " Definit terreuam potestatem spirituali ita subdi, ut ilia possit ab ista instituietdestitui."

It determines that earthly dominion is to be so subject to spiritual, that the former can be set up and pulled down by the latter.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED, 149

hands. Like a Roman Dictator, his business is to see that the Republic of the faithful receives no damage ; and if kino-s 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,i\\\sis the principle. Thomas Aquinas distinctly teaches that the church can absolve believing subjects from the power and domin- ion of infidel kings. J^gideus maintains that the power of the church, which is fully embodied in the sovereign Pontiif, extends not only to spiritual interests, but also to temporal affairs. Thomas Cajetan defines the power of the Pope, almost in the very words with which I have described this general opinion.*

* " Potest tamen juste per sententiam, vel ordinationem Ecclesise, auctori- tatem Dei habentis, tale jus dominii, vel praelationis tolli ; quia infideles merito suae infidelitatis merentur potestatem aniittere super fideles, qui transferuntur in filios Dei ; sed hoc quidem Ecclesia quandoque facit, quandoque non facit." — Bellarm. Tract. De Potest. Summ. Pontif. p. 11.

" Sed, inquit, diceret aliquis, quod Reges et Prineipes spiritualiter non tem- poraliter subsinl Ecclesise. Sedhaec dicentesvim argumenti non capiunt: nam si solum spiritualiter Reges et Prineipes subessent Ecclesiae, non esset gladius sub gladio : non essent temporalia sub spiritualibus ; non esset ordo in potesta- tibus ; non reducerentur infima in suprema per media. Hsec ille, qui toto illo tractatu hoc probat, potestatem Ecclesise, quae plenissima est in Summo Ponti- fice, non ad sola spiritualia,sed ctiam ad temporalia se extendere." — Ibid. p. 13.

" Ideo suae potestati duo conveniunt : primo, quod non est directe respect u femporalium : secundo, quod est rcspectu temporalium in ordiiie ad spiritualia : hoc enim habet ex eo, quod ad supremum fineni omnia ordinari dehent, etiam tem- poralia ab eo procul dubio, cujus interest ad illuin finem omnes dirigere, ut est Christi Vicarius; primum autem ex natura suae potestatis consequitur."-/6zrf.p.l5.

Such rights of dominion, however, may be taken away by the sentence or ordinance of the Church, having the authority of God ; because infidels, by reason of their unbelief, deserve to lose their authority over the faithful, who are transferred to the sons of God ; but as to this, the Church sometimes exe- cutes this, her right, and sometimes not, as she thinks fit.

But, some one may say, that Kings and Princes are subject to the Church spiritually, not temporally. Those saying this do not seize the force of the ar- gument ; for if kings and princes were only subject to the Church spiritually, there would not be a sword under a sword ; temporal things would not be under spiritual ; there would not be an order in powers ; the lowest would not be raised

150 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

Those who 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 Bellarmin de Potestate. Pri- vate writers, however, are of little value, compared with councils and Popes themselves. Gregory VII., in a Roman synod con- sisting of one hundred and ten bishops, presumed, for the honor and protection of the church, to depose Henry from the Govern- ment of Germany and Italy, and transfer his dominions to an- other man. This sentence, as Bellarmin triumphantly boasts, was afterwards 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 Bon- iface and Philip the Fair, Paul the third and Henry VIII., Pius V. and the Virgin dueen. The memorable Bull in Coena Domini, issued by Pius V. in 1567, should not be suflTered to pass without notice. This atrocious document prostrates the power

to the highest, through the intermediate. (So far, this author, who, in this whole treatise, proves this, that the power of the Church, which is complete in the sovereign Pontiff, extends, not to spiritual things alone, but temporal.)

His (the Pope's) power has not a direct respect to temporal things, but a re- spect to temporal in order to spiritual. For this it has from the circumstance, that all things ought to be ordered and disposed for one supreme end, and that by him unquestionably to whom it pertains to direct all things to that end, as he is Christ's vicar, and so the temporal power is involved in the nature of his spiritual power.

* " Quapropta confidens de judicio et misericordia Dei, ejusque piissimae matris semper virginis Mariae, fultus vestra auctoritate, saepe nominatum Hen- ricum, quem regem dicunt, omnesque fautores ejus excommunicationi subjicio et anathematis vinculis alligo ; et iterum regnum Teutoniconmi et ItaHee, ex parte Omnipotentis Dei et vestra interdicens ei, omnem potestatem et dignita- tem ilii regiam toUo et ut nuUus Christianorum ei sicut regi obediat interdico, omnesque qui ei juraverunt vel jurabunt de regni dominatione, a juramenti pro- missione absolvi." — Labbe, vol. x. p. 384.

Wherefore, confiding in the justice and mercy of God, and of his most holy mother Mary, always virgin, and supported by your authority, I lay under ex- communication, and bind under the chains of our anathema, the oft-named Henry, whom they style king, and all his adherents ; and on the part of Al- mighty God and you, interdicting him the rule of Germany and Italy, I deprive him of all power and regal dignity, and I forbid every Christian to obey him as king, and all who have sworn or may swear allegiance to him, I absolve from their oath.

APOCRYPHA DISnUSSED AND REFUTED. 151

of kings and magistrates at the foot of the Pope, subverts the independence of states and nations, and makes the sword of monarchs and rulers the pliant tool of Pontifical despotism.* Even in the nineteenth century, the successors of the fisherman are regaled with dreams of terrestrial grandeur, and Pius VII., in the plenitude of spiritual power, poured all the vials of his wrath upon the head of Napoleon.

Directly or indirectly, more or less distinctly, eight general 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 intended 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 Sovereign Pontiff, who shall proceed to absolve his subjects from their allegiance, and transfer his dominions to any usurper, wil- lincp and able to extirminate heretics and restore the faith. "f "If this," says Bellarmin, "is not the voice of the Catholic Church — where, I pray, shall we find it?" The council of

* For a particular account of this famous bull, the reader is particularly referred to Giannone 1st. di Napoli. lib. 33, cap. 4., who may there see its auda- cious interference with the right of kings, magistrates and rulers, fully exposed.

t " Si vero Dominus Temporalis requisitus et monitus ab ecclesia, terram suam purgare neglexerit ab hac hseretica fceditate, per metropolitanum et cceteros comprovinciales episcopos excommunicationis vinculo innodetur. Et, si satisfacere contempserit infra annum, significetur hoc summo Pontifici, ut ex tunc esse vassalos ab ejus fidelitate denunciet absolutos et terram exponat catholicis occupandam, qui eam exterminatis haereticis sine ulla contradictione possideant et in fidei puritate conservent." — Lahhe, vol. xi. p. 148.

But if any temporal lord, when required and admonished by the Church, shall neglect to purge his land from this heretical taint, let him be bound in the chains of excommunication by the metropolitan and other bishops. And if he disdain to give satisfaction within a year, let this be signified to the sovereign Pontiff, that henceforth he may declare the vassals of such lord absolved from their allegiance, and may devote his land to be occupied by catholics, who, exterminating the heretics, may possess it without any contradiction, and may preserve it in the tnie faith.

152 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

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 statute in relation to duelling, which seems to assume something more definite and tangible than spiritual power. The temporal sovereign who permits a duel to take place in his do- minions, is punished not only with excommunication, but with the loss of the place in which the combat occurred. The duel- ists and their seconds are condemned in the same statute, to per- petual 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 male- diction.*

* " Detestabilis duellonim usus fabricante diabolo introductus, ut cruenta corporum morte animarum etiam perniciem lucretur ; ex Christiano orbe peni- tus exterminetur imperatur, reges, duces, principes, marchiones, comites, et quocumque alio nomine domini temporales, qui locum ad monomachiam in terris suis inter Christianos concesserint, eo ipso sint excommunicati ac juris- dictione et dominio civitatis, castri, aut loci, in quo vel apud quem duellum geri permiscerint, quod ab eccfesia obtinent, privati intelligantur ; et, si fudalia sint, directis dominis statim acquirantur. Qui vero pugnam commisserint, et qui eorem patiini vocantur, excommunicationis, ac omnium honorum suorum proscriptionis, ac perpetuse infamiee pcsnam incurrant ; et ut homicidae juxta sacros canones puniri debeant ; et si in ipso conflictu decesserint, perpetuo ca- reant ecclesiastica sepultura, illi etiam, qui, consilium in causa duelli tam injure quam facto dederint, aut alia quacumque ratione ad id quemquam suasderint,nec non spectatores excommunicationis, ac perpetuae maledictionis vinculo tenean- tur non obstante quocumque privilegio ; seu prava consuetudine etiam immemo. rabili." — Lahhe,yo\. xiv. p. 916.

The detestable practice of duelling, introduced by the agency of the Devil, in order that, by the bloody death of men's bodies, he may gain the destruction of their souls — let it be utterly exterminated from the Christian world. Let the Emperor, king, duke, marquis, count or temporal lord of whatever name, who shall allow single combat to Christians within his territories, be by that act ex- communicated, and be understood as deprived of the jurisdiction of such city, fort, or place where such duel has been permitted ; and if feudal possessors, let them revert to their direct owners. As for the principals and seconds in such contest, let them incur ijie penalty of excommunication, deprivation of all their honors, and be doomed to perpetual infamy, and let them be punished as mur- derers according to thes&cred canons ; and if they have fallen in the conflict, let them be forever deprived of ecclesiastical burial. And let all who have in any

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 153

The inevitable tendency of these arbitrary claims to secular authority is to merge tlie State in the Church. Kings and Empe- rors, nations and communities become merely the instruments the pliant tools, of spiritual dominion. The kingdoms of the earth are inferior principalities to a magnificent hierarchy, the first places of which are reserved for ecclesiastical dio-nities. The higher commands the lower; and so the Pope can set his feet upon the neck of kings, and bind their nobles in fetters of iron. The Church includes the State, as the greater includes 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 honor and support her claims. Hence the Jesuit, in his secret oath, renounces al- legiance to all earthly powers which have not been confirmed by the Holy See, and devotes his life and soul to the undivided services of the Pope. The Romish Church, too, sets her face like a flint against the subjection of her spiritual officers to the le- gal tribunals of the state, and has positively prohibited the intolera- ble presumption in laymen, though kings and magistrates, of de- manding oaths of allegiance from the lofty members of her hier- archy.* They are specially and emphatically her subjects, and

way authorized or advised such duel, and oven spectators be bound underexcom- municatiou and everlasting curse, any privilege or depraved usage to the contra- ry notwithstanding.

* ■•' Nimis de jure Divino quidam laici usurpare conantur, cum viros eccle- siasticos, nihil temporale destinentes abeis, ad prae&tanduni fidelitates juramenta compellunt. Quia vero, secundum Apostolum, servius si/o Domino stat ant cadat ; sacri auctoritate concilii prohibernus, ne tales clerici personis saeculari- bus praestare coganturhujusmodi juramentum." — IV. Lateran, Can. 43. Lahbe, vol. xi. p. 191.

Some laics attempt to usurp too much of divine right, when they compel ecclesiastics, holding nothing temporal of them, to take oaths of allegiance. But, inasmuch as the apostle says, " to his own master the servant stands or falls," we prohibit, on the authority of the sacred council, that such clerics be compelled to take oaths of this kind to secular persons.

That ecclesiastical officers should be tried only in ecclesiastical courts, is the standing doctrine of the Canon Law. I select a few extracts from Gibert's Corpus Juris Canonici, yol. iii. p. 530 :

8

154 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

she cannot consent that their fealty should be transferred to others. Such principles are fatal to the independence of na- tions ; and just in proportion as the doctrines of Rome gain the ascendency among any people, just in the same proportion a se- cret enemy is cherished, slowly but surely plotting the destruc- tion of all institutions, however noble or sublime, that may hap- pen to contradict the humor of a bigoted Italian prince, or be in- consistent with decrees passed in ages of darkness, superstition, and despotism. 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 po- tation, 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 persecution, 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 liberties of this country should be destroyed, it would be by the machina- tions of Romish priests. They are all, in fact, the sworn sub- jects of a foreign potentate — they acknowledge an earthly king who has repeatedly denounced every distinctive principle for which our fathers bled — who, in the dark hour of their trial, when the sons of Poland rose up in the majesty of insulted nature, and demanded that freedom which is the birthright of nations, interposed his spiritual thunder to crush the rights of man. The

" Ul null us judicum neque Presbyterium, neque diaconum vel clericum ullum aut juniores ecclesias sine scientia Pontificis per se distringat aut darnnare preesumat. Clericus de omni crimina coram judice ecclesiastico debet conve- niri. In sacris canonibus generaliter traditur ut de omni crimine clericns debeat coram ecclesiastico judico conveniri.

" A saeculari potestate nee ligari, nee solvi sacerdotem posse, manifestum

est."

No judge shall presume, of himself, without the knowledge of the Pontiff, to distress or condemn either priest or deacon, or any clergyman or younger members of the Church. A clerk must, on every charge, be brought before an ecclesiastical judge. In sacred canon, it is uniformly ordered that for every crime a cleric ought to come before a clerical judge. It is clear that a priest cannot be bound or Iposed by a secular power,

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 155

priesthood of Rome is a formidable body. The moral elements which bind the human family together in the ties of truth, fidelity, and honor, are feeble to them as Samson's withes, or pointless as Priam's darts. To the outward eye all may he fair and seemly — but the country which they truly love, is that which is pre- pared 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 English liberty," as well as the "glory of English literature," the bold defender of the freedom of the press, the rights of conscience, and the rights of man, gave it as his deliberate opinion, that a Christian commonwealth, in consequence of the Pope's preten- sions to political power, and the idolatrous nature of his religious rites, ought not to tolerate his dangerous sect* When destitute of power or forming only a fraction of the community, papists may do no serious harm, but the serpent in the fable had lost no- thing of its venom, though it had lost its muscular activity. They whose eyes, night and day, are turned to the eternal city, whose prayers are hourly ascending for its glory, and whose zeal is devo- ted 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 favor of the monarch who sits upon the seven hills ; they who are bound, under an awful curse, to maintain the princely and divine preroga- tives which superstition, fanaticism, pride, and ambition have at- tributed 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 inter- ests 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

* See the question clLscussed, "How far the religion of the Church of Rome is tolerable ?" m Taylor's T/iberty of Propbepying. § xx.

156 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

must never be forgotten. The claims of brotherhood, friend- ship, patriotism, and honor — all that is dear on earth, in private relations or public institutions, 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 faithfni children throughout the world, to avoid the impending storm, nes- tle beneath her wings. Where is the state, community, 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 sin- gle word from the eternal city can turn them, in the eyes of pa- pists, to vanity and wind ? When was it ever known that a faith- ful son of the Church respected the laws as much as his priest, his country 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 ts 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 fol- low 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 en- dorsed by the Gallican clergy, remains to be considered.

According to this view, kings and rulers are not subject to the Sovereign Pontiff in the conduct of their secular affairs. 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 faithful in the will of God. Whatever he pro- poses as an article of faith must, of course, be received with undoubting faith. To admit the right of the people to deter- mine what arc articles of faith, and what are not, would be to in- troduce the odious principle of the ri^ht of private judgment.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 157

Then if the Pope has plenary power to define the articles of Ca- tholic faith, and if every thing is to be received as an article of faith which he proposes as such, he can easily introduce 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 na- tions, but it is the will of God that heretical magistrates should not be eiicourafjed, and obedience to their laws is a sanction of their crimes. He might caution the faithful not to be partakers in other men's sins, and guard them especially from encouraging the great in rebellion against God. The nice distinctions of the Gallican Church are mere dust and ashes, unless the doctrine of infallibility is denied, and the right of private judgment main- tained. 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 intro- duction 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 o{ temporal matters, and therefore capable of deciding when the Sovereign Pontiflf 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 decision. 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 unreasonable that we should abandon our judgments about political rights at the bidding of his holiness, than that we should renounce our confidence — in- stinctive though it be — in the report of our senses. Practically, therefore, the theory of the Gallican clergy is no security from the ejicroachments of Rome. So long as infallibility is main- tained, it will poison the purest principles, 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.

158 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

It is a pungent saying of Passavan, that *' Satan tendered the earth and all its glory to Immanuel, and met with a peremp- tory rejection — he afterwards made the same overture to the Pope, who accepted the offer with thanks, and with the annexed condition of worshipping the Prince of Darkness." The subtle arts and crafty machinations by which, from small beginnings, the Popes have usurped, under various pretexts, the right of uni- versal dominion, are a pregnant proof of an intimate alliance with the father 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 embroil- ing nations in war. Encouraged by success, they rose higher and higher in their claims until the summit of pontifical arro- gance was reached in the person of Hildebrand. What a chasm between Gregory II. and Gregory VII., filled up with gins, snares, and nets, fraud, hypocrisy, and lies ! While the succes- sors of St. Peter have pretended to labor 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 univer- sal 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 earth, 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 families of man, shall acknowledge the Pope, as king of kings and lord of lords. To accomplish this grand and magnificent purpose, Jesuits are found in every country, plying their labors 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 phi- losophy, and delight to discuss with senators aud statesmen the policy of states. Hunger, cold, and all the inclemencies of the sky are cheerfully endured in their exhausting journeys — the

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 159

frosts of winter consume them by night, and sleep departs from their eyes, and yet their zeal is invincible, and their industry un- tiring. There is one glorious object which animates their hopes — which lifts them above the ordinary passions of man — and ren- ders them insensible to danger and fearless of death. That ob- ject is the triumph of Rome. For her they have sacrificed moral character, personal comforts, the delight of patriotism, and the endearments 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 should ever triumph, they are the men whose principles 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 oi auricular confession establishes a system of espionage which is absolutely fatal to personal independence; and, from the intimate connexion between Priests and Bishops, and Bishops and the Pope, all the important secrets of the earth can easi- ly be transmitted to the Vatican. What can be more alarm- inop than a whole army, scattered through the lencrth and breadth of the land, in close and secret correspondence with a tyrant who detests every principle that makes life dear, or a country glorious? The ingenuity of earth and hell, could not devise a more successful expedient for prostrating liberty, enslaving the conscience, and introducing the Pope to an intimate acquaintance 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 the sole prerogative of God to know,

I have now, I apprehend, sufficiently shown that, according to the principles of Rome, the civil power is subservient to the epiritual-itlie state is a tool of the church. It will be seen at a glance, that such an assumption is not only fatal to the indepen- dence of states, but equally fatal to liberty of conscience and toleration of dissenters. The right to persecute is a legitimate

160 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

deduction from the relative position in which the church and state, on the pontifical hypothesis, stand to each other. It is the business of the magistrate to propagate religion, and as his weapons are exclusively carnal, the dungeon, pillory, and rack, he has a right to employ them in exacting uniformity of f;\ith. Bossuet was able to boast, that on one point all Christians had long been unanimous — the right of the civil magistrate to prop- agate truth by the sword. In every form and shape, by the writings of private individuals, the bulls of Popes, the canons of councils, and above all by public, flagrant, inhuman acis of mur- der, rapine, and violence, the Holy See has asserted its claim to mould the faith of men, through the arm of the magistrate, to its own detestable model. I need not insist on the ruthless cru- sades against the innocent victims of Lanoruedoc and Provence — on the infernal atrocities of the Inquisition, or the awful mas- sacre of St. Bartholomews ; the annals of the papacy are writ- ten in blood. From almost every quarter of the globe, the vic- tims of its cruelties shall send their cries to heaven for ven- geance on their destroyers. It is enough to know that if the infallibility of Rome were not pledged, through her Pope and councils, to the ferocious principles of persecution, it results ne- cessarily from the views which she takes of the state. In her eyes, want of conformity with her own faith is an act of rebel- lion, a contumacious rejection of civil authority, and should, there- fore, be punished by the temporal power, on the same ground by which punishment for incest, rape, or murder is justified. It is, first, according to her, the duty of governments, as such, to be nurs- ing-fathers to her faith, and then to spread it at the point of the bayonet, and with garments rolled in blood. The truth is, the only principle which can secure an equal toleration, and uphold the liberty of conscience, is the absolute separation of church and state. They cannot contract an alliance without enrren- dering the monster intolerance. Caesar and God must be kept distinct; the state, as such, is not a religions institution, though all the people who compose it may be devoutly religious; and when it assumes the propagation of religion as one of its dis- tinctive ends, it is travelling beyond its limits, and laying the foundation of bigotry, intolerance, and despotism. No govern-

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REPUTED. 161

ment on earth has a right to establish Christianity or any other system of religion by law, and no church on earth has a right to commend its doctrines or enforce its discipline by pains, penalties, or civil disabilities. To keep the state within the bounds of its appropriate jurisdiction, is the secret of civil liberty, and to re- strain the church within its own department of spiritual instruc- tion, is the secret of religious liberty. When these two grand organizations of God cross the orbits of each other, they me- nace the earth with anarchy, confusion and blood. They can never coalesce; and all arbitrary unions, like the converse of the sons of God with the daughters of men, are productive only of giants, famous for rebellion, and full of cruelty.

I shall now close what I intended to suggest on the infalli- bility of the Romish church. It will be remembered that you, sir, made this the medium of your triumphant proof of the in- spiration of the Apocrypha. I have met and refuted all your arguments — and shown, in addition, that every theory of papal infallibility, whether that of councils, popes, or the body of the church, is compassed with historical difficulties fatal to its truth. I have proved, moreover, that such extravagant pretensions are utterly inconsistent with truth, morality, religion, and liberty — the hiorhest and noblest interests of man. The state of the argument then is just this : 1st. Infallibility is a jiction, resting upon no authority of Scripture, upon no principles of reason, and contra- dicted by the testimony of the best and purest ages of the church. Therefore any argument which is based upon this *' worthless coinage of the brain" may be safely given to the winds — and therefore, your proof o^ the inspiration of the Apocrypha would have been just as conclusive, if you had appealed to the testimony of the man in the moon. 2d. If infallibility be admitted, then truth, morality, religion, and liberty must fall to the ground — for it is absolutely inconsistent with all these distinguished bless- ings. Here, then, is a perfect reductio ad absurdum. So that infallibility destroys itself, and leaves us in quiet possession of private judgment, with all the benefits that follow in its train.

8^

162 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

Letter X

Apocrypha not quoted in the New Testament.

Before proceeding to the third general division of your let- ters, I shnll pause for a moment to discuss a point which would detain me too long in its proper place, and which may be taken as a fair illustration of your deplorable incompetency to resolve any question involving the laws of literary criticism. When I read your effort to prove that Christ and the apostles, in their re- corded instruction actually quoted or referred to passages of the Apocrypha, I was forcibly reminded of those ingenious and discriminating authors who have been able to discover what they supposed to be unquestionable traces of the doctrines of the Cabbala in the Lord's prayer and the Epistles of Paul. Those who are silly enough to be convinced by the empty parade of texts which you have strung together in your second letter, ought not to withhold their assent from the learned speculations of Knorrius, confirmed as they are by the authority of so laborious a writer as Budda3us. That a man of sufficient perspicacity to find the Cabbala in the memorable declaration of Paul, "It is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners," should also detect in the New Testament traces of Apocryphal lore, would be only to exercise, in a different way, the same faculty of critical second sight. He that can discern disembodied spirits, requires, per- haps, no additional organs to perceive a devil. The passage which you have adduced as genuine quotations from the Apoc- rypha, or rather, which you have followed Huetius in treating as such, I am sure will strike no one in the same liorht, but those who are previously persuaded that if these books are not, they ought to have been, quoted by Christ and his apostles. The 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 (and a con- viction of interest is all the inducement which needs to be urged)

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 163

to decree that these passages are quotations why then quotations they would have to be considered.*

* I will lay "Tjeforc you some of the texts of the New Testament, in which the passages of those works are quoted or referred to.

1. " See thou never do to another what thou wouldst hate to have done to thee by another." Tob. iv. 16. " All things, therefore, whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do ye also unto them." Matt. vii. 12. "And as you would that men should do to you, do ye also to them in like manner." Luke vi. 31.

2. " Happy shall I be, if there shall remain of my seed, to see the glory of Jcrusi'( m. The gates of Jerusalem shall be built of Sapphire and Emerald, and ail the walls thereof round about of precious stones. All its streets shall be paved with white and clean stones ; and Alleluia shall be sung in its streets. Blessed be the Lord who hath exalted it, and may He reign in it for ever, and ever. Amen." Tobias xiii. 20-23.

" And the building of the wall thereof was of Jasper stones, but the city itself pure gold, like to clear glass. — And the foundation of the walls of the city were adorned with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation WBS Jasper, the second, Sapphire .... the twelfth, an Amethyst. And the twelve gates are twelve pearls, one to each : and every several gate was of one several pearl. — And the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass." Apocalypse or Rev. xxi. 18-21.

3. " But they that did not receive the trials with the fear of the Lord, but uttered their impatience, and the reproach of their murmuring against the Lord, were destroyed by the destroyer ; and perished by serpents." Judith viii. 24, 25.

" Neither let us tempt Christ as some of them tempted and perished by the serpents. Neither do you murmur : as some of them murmured, and were destroyed by the destroyer." 1 Cor. x. 9, 10.

4. " The just shall shine, and shall run to and fro like sparks among the reeds." Wisdom iii. 7. *' Then shall the just shine as the sun, in the kingdom of their Father." Matt. xiii. 43.

5. " They (the just) shall judge nations and rule over people, and their Lord shall reign for ever." Wisdom iii. 8. " Know you not that the saints shall judge the world ? 1 Cor. vi. 2.

6. " He pleased God and was beloved, and living among sinners he was translated." Wisdom iv. 10. " By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had translated him. For before his translation, he had testimony that he pleased God." Heb. xi. 5.

7. " For she (Wisdom) is the brightness of Eternal Light, and the unspotted mirror of God's Majesty, and the image of His goodness." Wisdom vii. 26. " Who (the Son of God) being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance, &c." Heb. i. 3. See also 2 Cor. iv. 4, and Col. i. 5.

164 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

The first text which you give us as a quotation from the Apocrypha, is the golden rule of our Saviour: "Therefore all

8. '-'For who among men is he that can know the counsel of God ? or who can think what the will of God is?" Wisdom, ix. 13. "For who hath known the mind of the Lord 1 or who hath been his counsellor 1" Rom. xi. 34.

9. " The potter also tempering soft earth, with labor fashioneth every vessel for our service ; and of the same clay he maketh both vessels that are for clean uses, and Ukewise such as serve to the contrary ; but what is the use of these vessels the potter is the judge." Wisdom xv. 7. "Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor." Rom ix. 21.

10. " Or if they admired their power and their effects, let them understand by them, that he who made them is mightier than they ; for by the greatness of the beauty and the creature, the Creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby." Wisdom xiii. 4, 5. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." Rom. i. 20.

11. "And his zeal will take armor and he will arm the creature for the revenge of his enemies. He will put on justice as a breastplate, and will take true judgment instead of a helmet. He will take equity for an invincible shield : and he will sharpen his severe wrath for a spear." Wisdom v. 18-21. " Therefore take unto you the armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day and to stand in all things perfect. Stand, therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of justice .... in all things taking the shield of faith, wherewith you may be able to extinguish all the fiery darts of the most wicked one. And lake unto you the helmet of salva- tion ; aftd the sword of the Spirit (which is the word of God)." Eph. vi. 13-17.

12. " They that fear the Lord, will not be incredulous to his word ; and they that love him will keep his way. — They that fear the Lord will seek after the things that are well pleasing to him : and they that love him shall be filled with his law . . . They that fear the Lord, keep his commandments, and will have patience, even until his visitation." Ecclesiasticus ii. 18-21. "If any one love me, he will keep my word." Jno. xiv. 23.

13. " My son, meddle not with many matters: and if thou be rich, thou shall not be free from sin." Eccle. xi. 10. " For they that will become rich, fall into temptation, and into the snare of the devil, and into many unprofitable and hurtful desires, which drown men in destruction and perdition." 1 Tim. vi. 9.

14. " There is one that is enriched by living sparingly, and this is the portion of his reward. In that he saith : I have found me rest, and now I will eat my goods alone ; and he knoweth not what time shall pass, and that death approachelh, and that be must leave all to others and shall die." Eccle-

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 165

things, whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them : for this is the law and the prophets."* 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 para- phrase. The original is: o fiiasig fn,dsvi noiricrr]?. *' What thou hafest, 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 Jiftcen 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. Nei- ther, 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 re- corded 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 per- form, 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

xi. 18, 19, 20. "And I (the rich man in the parable) will say to my soul: Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years, take thy rest ; eat, drink, make good cheer. But God said to him : Thou fool, this night do they require thy soul of thee ; and whose shall those things be which thou hast provided V Luke xii. 19, 20.

15. "If thou wilt keep the commandments and perform acceptable fidelity for ever, they shall preserve thee." Eccle. xv. 16. "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Matt. xix. 17.

16. The passage of St. Paul: "But others were racked, not accepting deliverance, that they might find a better resurrection (Heb. xi. 35)," has been acknowledged, even by Protestant commentators, to be, and evidently is, a reference to the account of the martyrdom of Eleazer, given in the second book of Maccabees, vi. 18-31.

* Huetius, who also gives the golden rule as a quotation from this passage of Tobit, admits, at the same time, that it might have been suggested as a dic- tate of nature. Demonstratio Evangel, vol. i. p. 307. De Libro Tobia.

J 66 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

Other a. prohibition. There is no more coincidence of thought betwixt these two passages, than between Exod. 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 pre- cept 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 sub- stantially, " 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 correspond- ing negative. But our Saviour himself has put the matter be- yond the possibility of doubt. The rule which he gave us was a compendious expression of the moral instructions of the laio and ihe prophets. As you have freely acknowledged that the Apoc- ryphal writings were not to be found in the canon of the Jewish Church, you will hardly contend that the " law and the pro- phets" embraced any of those books which Josephiis 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 classes : the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. Now, if the Saviour him- self is to be trusted, his memorable rule must have been sug- gested by something which is found, not in any Apocryphal wri- ter, 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 ignorant and wicked teachers had introduced and fostered. He explains the moral law, and maintains its strict- ness, purity, and extent, in opposition to the destructive glosses of the Scribes, Pharisees, and Doctors.

-^ The golden rule itself is evidently nothing but a statement, in another form, of the principle o{ universal Icve. Our own ex- pectations from others are made the standard of our conduct towards them — that is, our love to ourselves is to be the exact measure of our love to other men. The passage in Matt. xxii.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 167

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 Prophets.'' It is evi- dent, therefore, that Matt. vii. 12 teaches precisely the same thing as Matt. xxii. 39 — "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy- self," 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 coincidence of thought. Both are positive — and both make our recrard for ourselves the standard of our treat- ment to others. One is the text and the other a faithful com- mentary. *' Love thy neighbor 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 Re- deemer, when he refers you so distinctly to the Law, surpasses my comprehension. Can it be, sir, that your Biblical reading is confined exclusively, so far as the Old Testament is concerned, to books which possess no other authority but that of man ? I can well conceive that the book of Tobit would be peculiarly a favorite with the votaries of Rome. It is pervaded with such a tinge of superstition, nonsense, heresy, and will-worship, as to give it a powerful charm in the eyes of those who bear the image of the beast.

" A fellow-feeling makes us wondrous kind."

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 correspond- ing passage in the same Book of Tobit.* You have again fol- lowed the Douay version, which, however it may agree with the Vulgate, does not precisely render the original. The English * Vide Huetii Demonstratio, vol. i. p. 307. Libre Tobiae.

168 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

reader will find the passage to which you refer in Tobit xiii. IS- IS, of the authorized translation.

There can be evidently no quotation in this passage, since John is describing a vision, just as he saw it. He saw the jas- per, gold, and precious stones which adorned the foundations of the holy city, and testifies what he had seen. He does not pre- tend 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 he suggested by the objects before the mind. Again, the whole description is so strikingly 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 wijl lay thy stones with fair colors, and lay thy foundation with sapphires. And I will make thy windows of agates, and thy gates of carbuncles, and all thy bor- ders of pleasant stones." The brilliant illumination of the city by the presence of God, is iti 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 common and fa- miliar figures by which the glory of the church is constantly depicted in the sacred writers. The splendid decorations of Solomon's temple, independently of any other cause, would nat- urally suggest these symbolical embellishments. That they occur, consequently, in different writers, and in the same connection, is no proof whatever of quotation 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. The metaphor itself would suggest analogous trains of thought. So

ArOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. ] 69

when the church is compared to a city, to a splendid and mag- nificent 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 splendor and pomp of Solomon's un])aralleled edifice would probably be the first association in a Jewish under- stand in or.

It manifests, therefore, nothing but consummate ignorance of 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 ofTobit, because both speak of walls and founda- tions, jasper, amethyst, and gold. It is much more probable that Tobit borrowed from Chronicles, Ezekiel, and Isaiah.

Your attempt to make I Cor. x. 9, 10, a quotation from Judith, is too ridiculous to need refutation.* Paul is appealino- to the recorded history of the " fathers," as furnishing salutary examples of practical instruction. He gives us, consequently, a brief summary of the leading events connected with their re- moval from Egypt, and their ultimate settlement in Canaan. This summary, of course, is taken from the history itself. It is just an epitome of what niay be found fully recorded in the books of Moses. The passage in Judith, therefore, is just as much a quotation from the Pentateuch as that of Paul. Strictly, how-

* " Thirdly, in favor of the book of Judith, they bring two citations, one made by St. Paul when he said — they were destroyed by the destroyer — and another by St. James, who said, the Scripture ic as fulfilled , and Ahraham was 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 the Greek copies, there is never a word like them to be found. But whom shall the Jesuit persuade that the apostles quoted ^ Latin paraphrase, -which wns noi ex[txwt in their time? Or if we should grant that the 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,^ 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'' where God himself saiih of him," Abraham my friend." Cosin, Scholast. Hist. Can. p. 25.

1) Numbers xiv. 16. 2) Gen. xv. 16. 3) 2 Chron. \x. 7. 4) Isaiah xli. 8,

170 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

ever, neither passage is a quotation. Both writers 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 palpa- ble allusion to Daniel xi. 3, and Proverbs iv. IS. 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 1 If in the book of Wis- dom it had been written, that the righteous should be like glow- worms or fire-flies, there would have been just as solid founda- tions 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 expression 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 quota- tion from Wisdom iii. 8. It is, in fact, only another form of stating the promise that the kingdom and the greatness 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 triumphs of the kingdom of God, which is the burden of prophetic inspiration, and the constant subject of believing prayer. We have precisely the same idea in Psalms xlix. 14 — " Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death shall feed on them ; and the upright shall have dominion 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 pos- sessed the kingdom."

Wisdom* iv. 10, and Hebrews xi. 15, are both in pointed

* " In the first place, for the canonizing of the Book of Wisdom, they pro-

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 171

reference to Genesis v. 22-24, and therefore neither is a quota- tion 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.

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 au- thor 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 comprehend. To make out a quotation or a

duce St. Paul, and say that Rom. xi. 34 (Who hath made known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor ?) is taken out of Wisdom 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 altogether 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 Wisdom 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 au- thor than Philo, the Hellenist Jew of Alexandria, so there be several expres- sions in the undoubted Scriptures, concerning the representation, the splendor, the wisdom and the glory of God, whereunto he might allude in this his Epistle to the Hebrews, as he had done before in his 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 ivhom 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 ; Psalms ii. 7, and cxxxvi. 5 ; 2 Samuel vii. 14 ; Jeremiah li. 15, and x. 12, to some of which places the Apos- tle himself refers in this place to the Hebrews. Thirdly, that which is said of Enoch (Heb. xi. 5) needs not the Book of Wi.sdom to confirm it, for the story is clear in Genesis, 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. 1.5, 16) ; and, fifthly, that God is no accepter of persons is taken out of the words of Moses in Deuteronomy (x. 7). And yet there are, that refer both these max- ims to the Book of Wisdom, as if St. Paul had found them nowhere else." — Cosin,Scholast. Hist. Can. p. 23,24.

172 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

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 frequently occurs both in Job and the Prophet : Job xv. 8, Isaiah Ix. 18, &.C. The analogry 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 allusion to the nineteenth Psalm. The passage in Ephes. vi. 13-20, is much more analo- gous 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 armor; it grew almost unavoida- bly 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, &:.c. ; and it is just this con- nection 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 Ecclesias- ticus. 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 authority to which you have referred us. (See Ps. Ixix. 10 seq.)

Matthew xix. 17, is plainly a reference to Levit. xviii. 5. That Hebrews xi. 35, contains a reference to 2 Maccabees vi. 18-31, in which an account is given of the martyrdom of Eleaj zar, is not so certain as you seem to apprehend ; even if it were certain, nothing is proved but the historical fidelity of the narra- tive, which is far from being identical with inspiration.*

* Where for the persons, the matter is not so sure. For other men are of another mind ; and Paulus Burgensis (whose additions have the honor, even among the Romanists themselves, to be printed with Lyra's Notes and the or- dinary 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 Tes-

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 173

I have now noticed the several instances in which you pro- fess to have discovered traces of the Apocrypha in the writers of the New 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 sat- isfactory proof that Christ and his apostles made use of the Apocrypha. Mere quotations 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 portions of the gospel of John and the speculations of Philo. No- thing 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 have been done and yet the books themselves be entitled to no more reverence than Tully's Offices or Seneca's Epistles.*

In the progress of this discussion, your profound ignorance of the word of God has struck me with painful and humiliating force. The only books in the whole Bible which you seem to have studied at all, are those which the Church of God, in an- cient and modern times, has unanimously excluded from the sa- cred canon. The Law and the Prophets, to which our Saviour so often alludes, seem to be utterly unknown to you; and how-

tament. 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, tlian the words immediately following gave to another re- ceived story among the Hebrews, that Esay the Prophet was sawn asunder to death. Whereunto, though the Apostle might have reference, when he said {they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword, they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, af- flicted, tormented,) yet whoever 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 reason were good) but that the story of Esay's death ought to be canonized, as well as the story of Eleazar and his seven brethren in the Maccabees ; seeing there is as much reason for the one as can be given for the other." — Cosin. Scholast. Hist. Can. p. 27, 28.

* Vide, on this subject of quotations, Rainoldi Censura Librorum Apoc.vol.i. p. 77, Praelectio 7.

174 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

ever clear his references to these venerable documsnts, your sagacity can seize upon nothing but Tobit, Judith, and Wisdom. The instinct of superriiition is too strong for argument or criti- cal skill. If you find a single phrase which can be tortured into a remote approximation to coincidence of thought, you instantly leap for joy, like Archimedes from his bath, and expose your lit- erary nakedness in the ecstacy of your foolish delight. In a clumsy paraphase of a passage in Tobit, you scent oul the golden rule of the Son of God, though that rule had been revealed centuries before Tobit was born or blind, in the law of the Lord. 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 dwindles 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. Sir, these are the fooleries of criticism. They show any thing but the hand of a master or the pen of a scholar. There was an effort 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 dL plagiarist. Permit me to say that your folly is as great, although your inge- nuity is not so acute as that displayed by the wretched slanderer of the greatest, brightest, most glorious name that adorns the 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.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 175

Letter XI

Exclu.<ion of the Apocrypha from the Jewisli canon. — Definition of the term canon ; account of the manner in which it was formed.— Tiie evidence necessary to make a book canon- ical.— The dist netion between not receiving and rejecting a book shown to be false.

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 au- thors of these books wrote " as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," and that their productions are, by consequenee, entitled to equal veneration and authority with the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms. Your great argument, based upon the fiction of papal infallibility, has been already " shorn of its beams," and if it should appear to your mind, as it does to mine, in *' dim eclipse, scattering disastrous twilight" around it, I hope that your failure in presenting it will teach you a lesson of modesty, hereafter, and guard you effectually from undertaking a subject too high for your abilities.

As your refutation begins with a desultory notice of my first argument, it will be necessary to present the argument itself dis- tinctly but briefly, and then discuss the validity of your reply. I assumed as true what is cnpable 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, be- cause they were not inspired. That their exclusion from the Jew- ish 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 whole rule of faith which God had revealed to the church. But that no such defect existed in their sacred library, was made to appear frotn the silence of our Saviour, who nowhere insinu- ates that their standard of faith was incomplete, and, what is still more conclusive, from his recorded approbation of the Jewish

176 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

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 my argument was of that peculiar species in which the destruction or removal of the consequent is, by logical necessity, the destruc- tion or removal of the antecedent. The only points, therefore, in which the schoolmen would have informed you, this argu- ment could have been successfully assailed, were in the connec- tion of the two propositions which constitute the hypothesis on which it rests, or the validity of the process by which the conse- quent was denied. To give a complete and satisfactory refuta- tion, 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 sanctioned 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 centu- ries after they were dead. If they had been seni of God as teach- ers to their own generation, 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 conformity with the old logical maxim " c?e non existentibns et non apparentibus eadem est ratio^^ they might just as well not be inspired at all, as not be able to authenticate the fact. Unproved 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

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND ItLFUTED. 177

evidence of their divine illumination. You yourself have told us . that " when Almighty God designed to inspire the works con- tained 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 cotemporaries such attestations of their commission from heaven as to have rendered obedience imperative, and faith indispensable. The Jews, there- fore, in rejecting their productions from the sacred canon, must have resisted the authority of God, and, in pronouncing them not to be inspired, must have been guilty of a flagrant fraud. ^ The charge of fraud, however, which, of course, is hypotheti- cally made, is only incidentally introduced, and does not consti- tute, as in your reply you seem to have supposed, the essence of the argument. It was urged chiefly for the purpose of setting in a strong light, the moral necessity, which to my mind seemed to rest u[)on the Saviour, of vindicating the authority of these books, if, as you pretend, they were really the w'ord 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 hud 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 eanon, or entire rule of faith. Now, if the Apocrypha were inspired productions, even Trent being witness, they were canonical, and, therefore, their presence was indispensably essential to the integ- rity of the canon. They were a part of the rule which God had given, and yet our Saviour treats the riile as perfect when it is miserably cheated of its fair proportions — that is, upon this new system of papal mathematics, some of the parts are made equal to the whole. Such, sir, 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 under- stand it. Now, sir, wha-t is your answer? To what you con- ceive to be the leading proposition of my argument, you have nothing to reply but that the Jews might possibly have been ig- norant of the supernatural character of the books, or that no public tribunal existed, possessed of legitiniate authority to intro-

9

178 ROxMANlST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

diice them into the canon.* Your answer consists, in other words, of nothing more nor less than a pitiful defence of the hon- esty 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 inspired ! They were not to blame. God had furnished them with no satis- factory proofs that the Apocryphal authors were his prophets, and, therefore, they were not at liberty to treat their composi- tions as clothed with divine authority ! 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 syllo- gisms. 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 argument does not depend upon the causes which induced the Jews to exclude the Apocrypha, but simply upon the fact, that they 7vcre exclud- ed. The causes might have been ignorance or fraud ; as I inti- mated 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 " ar- gument is valueless and crumbles under its own irresistible weight."

Unquestionably, sir, your readers must admit your unrivalled ability in reasoning, and I have no doubt the unanimoue voice of posterity will accord to your extraordinary skill, a distinction hardly inferior to his who concentrated all the powers of his mind

* " With these prefatory obsen'ations, I take up your argument as simply stated above, and meet it by answering, that when the Jewish synagogue did not admit those works into the canon, it was because of the want of proof of their inspiration, and perhaps want of authority to amend an already duly es- tablished canon, and that, therefore, tliey were not guilty of the heinous sin you lay at their door." — Letter II.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 179

upon the recondite process of extracting sunbeams from cucum- bers. You exhibit the tact of a practised logician in evadinop the point of my argument, and like an artful pupil, when the question proposed by the master is too hard, you answer another.

You are aware, sir, that the very existence of your cause de- pends upon the truth of my consequent, and accordingly what- ever of reasoning there is in your essay, is devoted to the proofs by which my minor proposition was established. You deny, in other words, that Jesus Christ or his Apostles ever treated the Jewish canon as possessed of divine authority, or even referred to it at all. In refuting this extravagant assertion, 1 must cor- rect 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 sec- ond 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 kanon, as I have already had occasion to remark, is a rule or measure. In this sense it is used by the classical writers of antiquity, as well as by the great Apostle of the Gentiles. The subordinate mean- ings which we find attached to it in Suicer and Du Fresne may be easily deduced from its original application to a rule or measure.

In the early ecclesiastical writers, it is sometimes employed, as Eichhorn properly observes, to designate simply a book^ and particularly a book that served in general for the use of the church. The collection of hymns which was to be sung on fes- tivals, and the list of members who were connected with the church, received alike this common appellation. Again it was applied to the approved catalogue of books, that might be read in the public assemblies of the faithful, for instruction and edifi- cation ; and in modern times it is used to designate those in- 5/;ircf/ writings which constitute the rule of faith.* The Scrip- tures, therefore, are said to be canonical, not because their various books are numbered in a list, or digested into any particular order, but because they are authoritative standards of divine truth;

* Eichhorn's Eiuleitung, vol. i. cap. 1,§ L'"), pp. 10'?-3. The text is almost a literal translation of the passage.

180 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THIS

and the whole collection of sacred writings is called by pre-emi- nence, the canon, not because it is a collection, but because, in embodied form, it presents the entire rule of faith* It is inspi- ration, therefore, and that alone which entitles a book to be re- garded as canonical, because it is inspiration alone that invests it with authority to command our faith. If there were but one inspired book on the face of the earth, that book would be the canon — though it would be perfectly absurd to talk of a catalogue or list of one book. Accordingly, the distinguished German critic to whom I have already referred treats canonical and in- spired as synonymous terms. The Jews, it is important to state, did not apply the term canon to the collection of their sacred writings. They described the books themselves in terms

* " The infinitely good God, having favored manliind with a revelation of his will, has thereby obliged all those who are blessed with the knowledge thereof, to regard it as the unerring rule of their faith and practice. Under this character, the Prophets, Apostles, and other writers of the sacred books, pub- lished 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 ca- non is originally Greek, and did, in that language, as well as in the Latin after- wards, commonly denote that which was a rule or standard, by which other things were to be examined and judged. And inasmuch as the books of in- spiration contained the most remarkable rules, and the most important direc- tions 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, &c. pt. 1, c. 1, p. 19, vol. i.

See also Lardner's Supple, chap. 1, § 3, vol. v. p. 257 of Works. See also Chalmers' Evidences of Christianity, Book iv. chap. 1. Owen on Hebrews, Ex- ercit. i. § 2. That the definition which has been given in the text is abundantly confirmed by approved Papal authorities, the following extracts will place be- yond question. Ferus says — Scriptura dicitur canonica, id est, regularis, quia a Deo nobis data vitae 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 re- ligionis canonem, hoc est, regulam atque normam e ccelis summo Dei beneficio ad nos delatam continent amplissimam. Nam cum omnipotentis Dei incorrup- tissima et integerrima voluntas humanarum esse debeat actionum et voluntatum norma : merito sana a canone et regula nomen accipere ii codices debuere, qui- bus Divina mysteria atque voluntas comppehensa. And Bellarmin, whom Ray- nold styles the Prince of Jesuits, affirms — Remnitium recte deduxisse ex Augus- tino, libros sacros Scripturee ideo dictos canonicos, quod sint instar regulae. These extracts maybe found in Raynol. Censura. vol. i. p. 61.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED ^ND REFUTED. 181

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 indiscrimi- nately 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 in- spiration. This was the only canonical authority of which they dreamed. This it was that distinguished their books from the works of ihe Gentiles, and exalted their faith above the deduc- tions 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 he convinced of its divine inspi- ration. The very evidence which proves it to come from God, makes it canonical. In other words, the proofs of inspiration and the proofs of canonical authority are r)«c and the saine thing. Hence instead of requiring some great and imposing assembly, like the cheneseth hagadolah of the Jews, or your own favorite Council of Trent, to settle the canon of Scripture, it is a work which every one must achieve for himself. The external proofs of inspiration, which consist in the signs of an apostle or a prophet, found either in the writer himself, or some one com- missioned to vouch for his production, are as easy and obvious as the external proof that any body of men are supernaturally guarded from error.*

The contemporaries of Moses would know, from the miracu- lous credentials by which his commission was sustained, that his compositions were the supernatural dictates of God. They would consequently be a canon to his countrymen. As other prophets successively arose, their instructions, supported by simi-

* " The inspiration of a writer," says Jahn, " can only be proved by Divine testimony. Nevertheless nothing more can be required than that a man who has proved his Divine miracles or prophecies should assert that the book or books in question are free from error." Introduct. O. T. cap. 2, p. 3.5, Turner's Translation.

The reader will find this subject very clearly presented in Sermon xxiii. of Van MUdert's Boyle Lectures.

182 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

lar credentials, would receive a similar 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 authenticated 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 Beersheba, 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 authenticate 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 inspiration 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 inno- vations 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 multitude of coun- sellors, there would be safety. -\ To this must be added the sleepless providence of God, which would preserve his word, which he hath exalted above every other manifestation of his name, amid all the assaults of its enemies, and transmit it to future generations unimpaired by the fires of persecution, as the burning bush was protected from the flame.|

* 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 evidence is com- plete. Josephus Antiq. 1. iii. c. i. § 7 ; 1. v. c. i. § 17. De Bello. Jud. l.vii.c. 5, § 5. See also Eichhorn Einleit. vol. i. §.3.

t This subject is ably discussed by Abbadie in a short compass. See Christ. Relig. vol. i. §.3, c. 6.

X Upon the manner in which the canon was gradually formed, and for a full and satisfactory explanation of the doubts which existed in the primitive church in reference to some of the books of the New Testament, see Lancaster's Bamp- ton Lectures.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 183

It is a favorite scheme of the papists to represent the settling of the Canon as a work of gigantic toil and formidable 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 l><&\v Testament. The churches that received the Epistles from Paul could have had no doubts of their canonical authority^ be- cause they kncui 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 cotemporary brethren as the Word of the Lord. The books actually written by the Apostles, or approved by their sanction, would be known by having 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 century, is doubtful of the Epistle to the Romans, all that is necessary to settle his mind is to convince him that Paul actu- ally wrote it. This being done, its inspiration follows as a mat- ter of course. If a book, on the other hand, which pretended to be inspired, could produce no adequate proofs of apostolic origin or apostolic sanction, its claims would have to be rejected, unless its author could exhibit, in his own person, the signs of a heavenly messenger. The congregations 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 com- mon 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

lJ^4 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

established their pretensions by miraculous achievements, or were sanctioned by those who were already in possession of supernat- ural credentials. Now what can a council do in a matter ofthis sort, but give the testimony of the men who compose it? Its authority as a council is nothing — it may be entitled to defer- erence and respect as embodying the testimony of credible wit- nesses. Every thing, 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 col- lected, little need be said in refutation of your extravagant ac- count of the origin and settlement of the canon of the Jews.

1 could have predicted beforehand, from your known parti- ality for Synods and Councils, that you would have 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 in- quiries, until you had met with some body of men in whose deci- sion your papal proclivity to confide in the authority of man, might be humored or indulged. As to the wolf in the fable, no possible combination of letters could be made to spell any thing but 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. Mlt, sir, where is the proof that this great synagogue ever existed ? The first notice which we have of it, is contained in the Talmud, a book which began about^z?e hundred years after this synagogue is said to have perished. You are more modest, how- ever, than some of your predecessors. Genebrard, not content, like yourself, with a single Council, has fabricated tico other Synods to complete the work which Ezra had begun.* By one of these imaginary bodies the books of Tobias and Ecclesias- ticus were added to the canon, and by the other, the remaining works of the Apocrypha. The great synagogue, which you have endorsed, was a regular ecclesiastical body, in which might be dis- cerned, to use your own words, " a general council of the church,

* Hottinger, Thesaur. Phil. lib. i. c. i. quest. 1, p. 110.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 185

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 evidence are you able to produce, that a body, so evidently extraordinary as this is re- ported to have been, is any thing more than r fiction ? You are probably aware, sir, that Jahn pronounces the story to be a fable, in which he is confirmed by what in a question of literary criti- cism is still higher authority, the opinion of Eichhorn.* We are not wanting in Jewish writers from the period of Ezra, to the advent of Christ, and the compilation of the Talmud, 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 hun- dren 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 cotemporaries, 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 falsehood 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 editionof the Scrip- lures, {of the canon as already existing,) by the " principal elders, who lived in a continual succession from the first return

* The Jews attribute the establishment of their canon, to what they call the Great Synagogue, which during more than two hundred years, from Zenib- babel down to Simon the Just, was composed of the prophets and 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 consti- tuted the synagogue, were chiefly instrumental in the new regulation of the state, and in the constitution of the Jewish church, and consequently, in the col- lecting and fixing the holy books upon which this constitution was established." — Jahns Introd., Turner s Trans, p. 45.

See also Eichhorn's Einleit. vol. i. § 5. An account of this great synagogue may be found in Bartolocci Bibliotheca Rabbinica, vol. iv. p. 2, on the word " Chene.seth Ilasiadolah." Buxtorf Tiberias, c. .\. xi. Leusden, Philol. Heb. Dissert, ix. 6 4. jv 7.1.

9*

186 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

of the Jew? 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 hioivn to be the compositions of prophets. There is no evidence that he furnished additional proof of the inspiration of Moses, David, or Isaiah, and yet this he must have done if he made them canonical. t The truth is, he did nothing more in reference to existing books than discharge the duties of a critical editor. His labors were precisely of the same kind as those of Griesbach, Knapp, and Mill. He might have been guided by inspiration in executing these functions, for he was confessedly 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.

" What authority," you state wMth 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 creden- tials. Whoever claimed to be inspired, and sustained his pre- tensions by signs and wonders, which none could do unless God were with him, was in fact inspired, and whatever he wrote under the influence of inspiration, belonged of necessity to the canon. t

* In addition to the authority of Jahn, see also Prideaux, vol. i. p. S.'SO. Knapp's Lectures, vol. i. art. i. §4, p. 81.

t " But the great work of Ezra, was his collecting together and setting forth a correct edition of the Holy Scriptures, which he lahored much in, and went a great way in the perfecting of it. This hoth Christians and .Tews give him the honor of, and many of the ancient Fathers attribute more to him, in this parti- cular, 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 saith Irenseus, 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 Romanists them- selves to receive into their canon." — Frideaux, vol. i. p. .368.

i " In the race of a person, claiming to he commissioned with a message

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 187

Your distinction, accordingly, between not inserting a book reall}' inspired in a canon, and rejecting it from a canon through defect of proof or want of authority, is wholly gratuitous and ab- surd. As the only way in which 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 can- not be rejected after its inspiration is established ; we may refuse to obey its instructions, but if we knoiv it to be inspired, it must be regarded as speaking with authority. Whether we liear, or v/hether we forbear, it still is entitled to be considered 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 supposing that the charge of rejecting the Apocrypha from the canon cannot be sustained against the Jews, unless they had proof that these

from God, the only proof which ought, to be admitted is miraculous attestation 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 connection with his minis- try, as to remove all doubt of its reference to him and his message. The mir- acle, 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 appointment and miiiisuy ; and corresponds to the exhibition of specimens and experiments which we should require of a geologist, mineralogist, or chem- ist, 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 Is- raelites might be tenned inspired — that is, the persons who wrote the Bible, and those who were appointed to govern God's people of old, were divinely commissioned and miraculously qualified, as far as was needful, for their respec- tive employments. This being so, the inspiration of Scripture is not, 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 tiiat the writers were persons who performed miracles, or 3, That there be satisfactory testimony that the writings were recognised as works of inspiration by persons who must have been assured pf this on the evidence of miracles." — Thid. p. 27. 28.

188 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

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 he inspired.^'

* I find that Raynold in his admirable work, Censura Libromm Apocry- phorum, 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 Senen- sis, he thus proceeds : " Concidit ergo alterum exceptionis Sixti membrum : nunc ad alterum, quod ita habet : Etsi non recepervnt in canonem, tamen non rejecertint; aliud enim vcn recipere, alivd rejicere. At idem plane est ad id de quo agimus, non accipere et rejicere. Nam mutemus verba prions ratiocinationis nostrae, et dicamus : Si quae unquam ecclesia verum et certvm testimonium dare potuit de Lihris canonicis Sacrae Scripturae, de Lihris certe Veteris Testamenti veins Ecclesia Judaica potuit. At ea hos, qui sunt in controversia, libros in canonem non recepit. Ergo recipiendi non sunt. Quid jam lucratus est Canus ? Nobis satis probasse non esse recipiendo, quod enim Christus apud Matthaeum dicit, qui vos recipit, me recipit, id apud Lucam sic efFertur, qui vos rejicit, me rejicit, et ahbi qui non colligit mecum spargit : hie non recipi est rejici, ut in virtutis via regreditur, quicunque non progreditur^ in Apocalypsi, foris ernnt canes, et venefici, et scortatores, et homicidcB, 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 hos receptos, hos libros sed et rejectos fuisse docebo. Quid est enim rejicere, nisi negare esse canonicos ? Quid non recipere, quam (ut levius in Cani gratiam interpreter) dubitare num sint recipiendi 1" — Cens. Lib. Ap. vol. i. p. 86. Praelect ix.

" One member of the exception of Sixtus has fallen ; noAv for the other, which is this ; ' although they (the Jews) did not receive these hooks into the canon, they did not reject them : — not to receive and to reject, are different things. They are evidently the same, however, in the matter of which we are treating. For let us change the form of expressing our first argument, and say if any Church could give a true and certain testimony concerning the canonical books of Holy Scripture, particularly the books of the Old Testament, it was the ancient Church of the .fews. But this Church did not receive into its canon the disputed books, therefore they ought not to be received. What, now, has Canus gained? It is enough, to prove that \hey on ght not to be received. Christ, in Matthew, says, whoso receiveth you, receive th me; the same idea is expressed in Luke, whoso rejecteth you, rejecteth rne, and else- where, he that gathereth not with me, scattereth. In these passages, not to be received and to be rejected, are the same thing, as he who goes backward in the path of virtue does not go forward ; and, as in the Apocalypse, without are dogs, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and murderers, and idolaters, and who- sopver loveth and maketh a lie. What will it profit thes" not to he rejected if

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 189

All your blunders upon this subject have arisen from the am- biguity of the word canon, and from the preposterous idea, that there is something peculiarly mysterious and profound 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 col- lection, 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.

These 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 proposi- tions of my argument, will be found so essentially wanting in every element of strength, that it may safely be pronounced as worthless as you have represented my own to be, and will assur- edly " crumble under its own irresistible weight."

Letter XII

Our Saviour approvod the Jewish canon and treated it as complete, Saddiicees vindicated from the charge of rejecting all the Old Testament but the Pentateuch. The real point which Papists must prove, in order to establish the inspiration f the Apocrypha.

That the Jewish canon was not defective, was made to ap- pear from the silence of Christ, in reference to any omission impairing its integrity ; from His recorded conversations, in which he evidently sanctioned it as complete; and from the in- structions of His apostles, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

they are not received ? But that this distinction may be yet more fully re- futed, I will not only show that these books were not received, but that they were positively rejected. For what is it to reject but to deny that they are canonical ? And what not to rereive. but to doubt whrthf^r they should be received ?"

190 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

Your reply to these several distinct proofs of my minor pro- position, 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 falsehood, you avail yourself of the ambiguity of a term, and endeavor to " embosk in the dark, bushy, and tangled forest" of verbal technicalities.* It is freely conceded that our Saviour 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 for- mal catalogue of all the inspired 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 monstrous hy- pothesis. 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 Works of Homer, the Works of Plato, or the Works of Cicero, evidently embrace a complete collection of their various performances ; and to refer to them under these titles y is to refer to the catalogue or list of their literary labors. If the question were asked, what were the works of Homer, 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 generjil and comprehensive titles to the whole body of their sacred writings, and if our Saviour refered to these documents, under those titles, he referred, un- questionably, to the catalogue or list of their divine composi- tions, that is, in your own sense, he referred unquestionably to the

* " You have entirely forgotten or omitted to allege, or even by note to refer to a single passage of the New Testament, wherein the Saviour or the Apostles gpeak at all of the canon of the Jews. They refer to the Scriptures generally, and to particular books, they quote from them, but 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, much less treated that catalogue as complete and containing the whole of God's revelation as far as then made. — Letter II.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 191

canon of his countrymen. Have you yet to learn, sir, that the phrases " Scriptures," " Holy Scriptures," " Sacred Books," and such like expressions, which are continually occurring in Philo and Josephus, were 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 ?t Certainly, sir, there is as much evidence of these facts, as of the existence of an infallible "council of the church in the old law," in the days of Ezra. If, now, our Saviour or his apostles ever referred to the inspired documents of the Jewish faith, under the general and comprehensive title of the " Scriptures," or under the three- fold division of their books which ancient usage had sanctioned, he referred, 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 main- taining that the general does not include the particulars, the whole is not composed of its parts 1 Homer sometimes nodded ; and you, too, in a moment of unlucky forgetfulness, have virtually acknowledored that there can be a reference to a canon, when the name itself is not mentioned, and when there is no complete enumeration of the specific books which constitute the list. You have appealed to a writer, who, from the passage quoted, would evidently appear to be Flavins Josephus, though, in the plenitude of papal authority and sacerdotal learning, you have reversed his name, for the purpose of showing " what were the ideas of the Jews," on the subject of their nationcd canon. What evidence have you, sir, that will not as clearly apply to the case of Christ and his apostles, that Josephus, in the cele-

* Hottinger, Thesaur. Phil. lib. i. c. 2, § 3. Leusden, Phil. Heb. dissert, i. § 1. Eichhom, Einleit. c. i. § 6. Jahn, Intiod. Prelim. Observ. § 1.

t 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 .Tesusthe t^on of Sirach. We find it in his Prologue. See Leusden. Phil. Heb. Dissert, ii. § 1. Hot- tinger, Thesaur. Phil. lib. ii. c. i. § 1. Eichhom, Einleit. c. i. § 6. .Tahn, pt. i. § 10.3.

192 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

hrated 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 ihat belonop to each division ?* The same divisions are mentioned by our Saviour (Luke xxir. 44), ''AH things must be fulfilled 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 classi- fication, 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, that this is equivalent to the mention of a canon. The number of books may be gathered from the catalogue, but it is no more the cata- logue itself, than the general heads under which the list is arranged. If I should say that there are twenty thousand vol- umes 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 contained five thousand vol- umes, would 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, which, with you, is the only

* This passage occurs in .Tosephus 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 Artaxerxes, who, after Xerxes, reigned over the Persians, the prophets who lived after Moses, have recorded, in thirteen books, what happend 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, every thing has been recorded ; but these writings are not held to be so worthy of credit as those written earli^»r. because after that time there was no regular succession of prophets !'"

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 193

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 assertions, that " there is not in the whole New Testament a single passage, showing that Christ and his apostles ever referred to the canon, catlaogue, or list of inspired books held among the Jews," is a pure fabrication of the brain. — Your imagination was evidently commencing that grand process of unreal 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 power of teaching the faithful what were the inspired books." I tremble for history when your mind is in travail. Laboring mountains produce a mouse, but laboring priests bring {orih facts from the womb of fancy — are delivered/ of gods in the shape of bread, and produce Redeemers in the form of saints.

If, upon your own hypothesis, that a canon and list of inspired books are synonymous terms, your position is grossly and palpa- bly false, how triumphant becomes its refutation upon the true view of the case, that the canon of the Jews wrs their anthorita^ tive 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 thing which is now denoted by the compendious appella- tion 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 satisfac- tory claims to a supernatural origin were ranked in a different category. As then the Jews evidently meant by the Scriptures pre- cisely what we mean by the canon or canonical books, our Sa- viour's references, as also those of his apostles, to the Jewish rule of faith under this general designation, loere references to

194 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

the national canon. Wherever the word 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 mean- ino-. 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 acknow- ledge.*

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, was subsequently denominated Hagiographa — the phrase employ- ed by the Jews (Ketubim) being less definite and precise. The books of this third division, as would appear from the term Ketu- bim 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. t It appears, too, that Jesus was accustomed to introduce repeated allusions to the books of the Old Testament under a two-fold di- vision— which not unfrequently occurs in the remains of the Fa- thers— the Law and the Prophets. j: (Matt. v. 17, vii. 12, xi. 13, xxii. 40. Luke xvi. 16.)

Not only did Christ and his apostles appeal to the canon of

* In my original essay, I made no special references to show that Chiist 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 Uke proving that the sun shines at noonday.

t The Psalms of our Saviour's arrangement and the Hagiographa of later classifications are evidently the same. There being no single word by which all the books of this class could be denoted, led, necessarily, to a periphrastic description, or to the mention of a single book as a reference to the series.

t Suicer on the word ypafri, § 7.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 195

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 al- lusion 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 Scrip- tures which 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, particular passages are repeatedly introduced as theipsissima verba of the Holy Ghost.* These facts incontestably prove that the Jewish canon was sanc- tioned 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 new dispenation of ari 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 doctrines 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. Whatever changes they made, or novelties they taught, respected the organization and not the essence of the church. Hence the primitive Chris- tians, even before a single gospel or epistle had been indited, had a written rule of faith. They were never for a moment, as

* The following passages show the light in which the .Tewish canon was held by the writers of the New Testament. I have before me a list of direct quotations maJe from the Old Testament by the writers of the New, amounting to about 272. Yet there is no reference to the Jewish canon I

Matt. xi. 13, XV. 3-6, xix. 2-6, 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, -k. 34. Acts iii. 18, xxviii. 25. Rom. i. 2, iv. 2-24. Gal. iii. 8, 16. Pleb. iii. 7, xii. 27. 1 Pet. i. 11. 2Pet.i. 21.

196 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

the papists pretend, left to oral tradition for the doctrines of their creed.

But the Jewish canon was also held to he complete. In the original essay this point was presented as a legitimate and obvi- ous inference from the silence of the Saviour in reference to any defects in the sacred library of his countrymen. Now the strength of this argument must depend on the strength of the presumption, that, if such defects in reality existed, the Messiah would have felt himself bound to correct and remove them. Ac- cording to the hypothesis of Rome one fifth of the revelation of God was deprived of that 6^?««/ veneration and authority to which it was justly entitled with the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. Now the question is, whether that great Prophet of the church, ** who was clad with zeal as a cloak " — who came tP magnify "the Law and make it honorable," and who expressly declared that he had " not refrained his lips " from speaking righteous- ness in the great congregation, nor concealed from it the truth and loving-kindness of the Lord ; the question is whether such a prophet would suffer so large a part of the light of revelation to be extinguished without uttering a single word in its defence. Upwards of fourteen hundred years before he was born, his Fa- ther-had distinctly announced, " I will put my words in his mouth, and lie 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 almost equal in bulk to the whole New Testament 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, Oh Lord, thou knowest "? The Jews had excluded the Apocrypha, either wil- fully or ignorantly — if wilfully, tiiey 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 would 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 nat- ural upon the supposition that they were merely human produc-

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 197

tions. He would have, in thai case, no more occasion to mention them than to mention 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 distinc- tion, 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 ouly pas- sage which bears upon the 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 1 do not exactly perceive the consequence. But let that pass. Let us admit that he may have laid 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 church? No history perhaps records all the sayings and doings of the continental congress — but that certainly would not deserve the name of a history that should neglect to make the most distant reference to the Declaration of Independence ? Whatever 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 improhahle that our Sav- iour would have failed to correct the defects of the Jewish can- on, 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, how- ever, 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 Apos- tles and Evangelists to explain, instead of the silence of Christ. — For this and all other difficulties, however, you have a stereo- typed solution at hand. What Christ did not choose to do in per- son 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 tribunal — a general council of the church, like the fictitious synagogue of Ezra, " claiming and

198 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

exercising, by the authority of God, the power^of teaching the faithful what were the inspired works." But as every falsehood accumulates additions in its progress — vires acquirit eundo — so your infallible body possesses some larger powers in your second letter than it was represented to possess in your first. You have brouo-ht it so often before the public, and exposed it to view in such tattered apparel, that it has finally lost its modesty, and be- gins 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 pos- sessed no power to make neio articles of faith, they could only an- nounce with infallible certainty what had always been the old. In your second letter, these councils rise a step higher, and be- come prophets themselves, intrusted with neiv 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 own persons had ever tes- tified to the inspiration of the Apocrypha — that is, had ever taught that the Apocrypha were inspired — an infallible council could subsequently 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 councils 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 stupendous folly.

You are extremely unfortunate in your attempt to refute from analogy my obvious inference from the silence of the Sa-

* " Suppose those works inspired, as I contend they are, but not admitted at the Saviour's time into the Jewish canon, it was not, strictly speaking, neces- sary that either Christ or his apostles should testify personally to their inspira- tion. If the Saviour established a body of men, who, by his authority, and under the guidance of his Holy Spirit of truth, were to decide that question, which, as I showed in Letter I, we are necessarily bound to admit, the decision of such a body at any subsequent period would be amply sufficient." — Letter 11.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED J99

viour. 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 Ketubini, I think it will be difficult for you or any other man to prove. It has been supposed that because our Saviour refutes their skeptical opinions in regard to the resurrec- tion 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 resurrec- tion, since, in a given case, its peculiar requisitions, according to their view, would introduce confusion and discord into the future state. Their difficulties were met, by correcting their misapprehensions 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, Tertuilian, 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 suc- cess by Joseph Scaliger, that Bishop Bull pronounces his argu- ment to be decisive of the question. That -must be a bad cause, in a matter of literary criticism, which such men as Scaliger, Spanhfim, Pearson, Bull, Jortin, Waterland, and Eichhorn, to say nothing of Brucker, Buddaeus, and Basnage, unite to con- demn ; and yet all these men are found arrayed against the pa- tristic 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 excep- tion of the Pentateuch, but it is not so clear that the Saviour failed to rebuke them. You are probably aware, sir, that distin- guished commentators, both in ancient and modern times, have

* Brui^ker, vol. ii. p. 721 . Pearson, Vindieat. Tgnal. pt. 1 ,c. 7, p. 4G7. Bull, Harm. Apost, Diss. Post. 10, 14.

200 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

regarded John iv. 22, as a pointed reproof of Samaritan infidel- ity ; and it was incumbent upon you to prove that this common interpretation was erroneous before you could confidently as- sume, that the whole matter was permitted to pass sub silentio by Christ.* Again, it was hardly necessary to rebuke the Sa- maritans, as our Saviour's notorious concurrence in the faith of the Jews was an open, public, 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 imbecility and folly. First, it was not so absolutely certain that Christ was silent, since he performed many signs and wonders, which have never been committed to written records. Then, again, he could afford to be silent, as he had established an infallible tri- bunal, abundantly competent to supply all his deficiencies, 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 un- doubtedly 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 ingulf 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 deter- mined to abide. You stoutly deny that Christ was silent in the matter, and promise to prove, though papal promises are sel- dom redeemed, " 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 Christians as divinely inspired works." Apart from the lying testimony of an infallible church, the only proof which you present, in your second letter, of this miserable fiction, is drawn from the assumption, that, in the Ntw Testa-

* Such is the interpretation put upon this passage by Ammonius, Grotius, Lampe, Tholuck, and others. Thokick's comment is specially deserving of notice.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 201

ment, quotations are made from the Apocryphal writers, and from the admitted fact, that these books were early embodied in the Septuagiin. 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 documents ivhich compose the Ncio Testament. The passage, Rom. xi. 34, which of all others seems to be most analoffous 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 Testa- ment, was, on that account, inspired. 1 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 heathen 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 argument 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

*VValton, that in the time of Christ and his apostles, the Septua-

gint contained the Apocrypha.! You then infer, that " if those

* See No. X. of this series of Letters.

t 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 dociuncnts were iit the hands of the apos- tles, why were they never quoted ? How does it happen that not a single allu- sion is made to them, nor a single passage extracted from them ? But the sub- ject is too unimportant to spend much time upon it. I shall just observe, that I am sustained in my opinion by Eichhorn, as well as Schmidius. The passage from Walton proves nothing as to the time when the union betwixt the Septua- gint and Apocrypha took place. A. P. F.'s eulogy upon Walton's competency to settle a question of this sort, is not a little amusing, since, probably, the most exceptionable part of his famous Prolegomena i.s in relation to the origin of the

10

202 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

books were uninspired, the Saviour and his apostles were cer- tainly hound positiveli/ 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 ; to reject a book is not to be persuaded or convinced of its divine inspiration, or to pronounce it uninspired. As there is no evidence that a single man, woman or child, in the whole land of Judea, looked upon the Apocrypha as inspired productions, what need was there that Christ should positively assert what no one thought of denying? His silence was 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 evidence 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 speak, 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 author- ity of Tobit, Judith, and Wisdom. The truth is, you have been led into this foolish argument by the ambiguity of the sentence, that the Septuagint contcdned the Apocrypha. You evidently treat the phrase as conveying the idea, that whatever books were inserted in that version, were possessed of equal 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 to- gether, and that, for the purpose of presenting in regular series, the rtmarkahle history of God's chosen people. In this way a complete collection was made of Jewish literature, inspired and uninspired. The line was clearly drawn between the divine and human ; but as they both met in the common point of Jewish

Septuagint. He ought not to be read upon this point, without Ilody at hand to correct his partiality for the fable of Arisfaens.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 203

history, they were united together in one collection. Thus much might have been gathered from the famous passage of Josephus, which was evidently before your eyes, ** We have not," says he, " innumerable books which contradict each other, but only twenty-two which comprise the history of all tiroes past." * * * ** Since Artaxerxes, up to our time, every thing has been re- cordcdr In the eyes of Josephus, then, both the canonical and Apocryphal books contained the history of his nation, and there- fore, had a common 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, " ivere not so uwrthy of credit, because, after that time, there was no regular succession of prophets'' or inspired writers. Another circumstance which undoubtedly con- tributed 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 (particularly the Hellenist) these Apocryphal docu- ments with the same sort of veneration with which we now con- template the monuments of illustrious teacliers of the truth.

It is, certainly, no commandation of these books, to say that they were written with that subordinate degree of inspiration, which the Jews denominate the " daughter of the voice."* The stories of the Rabbins concerning this singular method of super- natural communication, reveal a degree of superstition, and be- tray a fondness for magical delusion, which sutTiciently illustrate the real source of their famous ''hath gtiol." in attributing to the writings of the Apocrypha this peculiar species of inspiration, a suspicion is naturally awakened, that much of the esteem in which they were held, may be ultimately traced to their own pat- ronage of something not very remote frou! tiie black art. A strong inclination to credulity and magic wns, according to Light- foot, a characteristic of the Jews under the second temple, and I

* For an nrrount of tliis species of iiii=piration. see Wifsii Opern.vol. i. lib. i. e. .'}. liiehtfcot on YXv.W. iii. 17

204 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

know of nothing better suited to a humor 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 with the sanction of the apostles, in such a way as to imply that they were divinely inspired.* This would follow only upon the hypothe- sis, that when admitted they were admitted as inspired. If they were introduced into connection with the Septuagint, simply as histor- ical works, covering an interesting period of the Jewish annals, or as moral compositions pervaded by an elevated tone of reli- gious sentiment, there would be no more objection to incorpo- rating them with the Septuagint, than to placing them on the same shelf in a book-case. The apostles, I i)resume, 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 was not the perusal of the books, or the j^laces 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 would hardly object to the study of them. It was 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

* " I believe with Walton, that the Septuagint, 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, not to suiTer the unnatural union to pass into the church." * * But you do not believe that the Septuagint, at the Saviour's time, contained the Apocrypha. Rev. sir, a more disastrous avowal you could not have made. The union, then, took place in the church, necessarily under the eyes and with the approbation of the apostles, and their immediate, most faithful disciples. These books are quoted and referred to as divinely inspired Scripture. I could not desire a stronger case. Before the apostles, the contested books were not inserted. Immediately afterwards we find them already inserted. A change has taken place. It could only be effected by, it could only be attributed to, the Saviour and his apostles. Therefore they DID leave these works to the Chris- tian world as INSPIRED."— Zff/er //.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 205

to quote the heathen poets ; and if the Hellenistic Jews and the early Christians could not place the Apocrypha by the side of their canonical books without sanctioning the inspira- tion of the former, how could Paul weave whole sentences of heathen poetry into his own divine compositions, without, at the same time, endorsing the supernatural inspiration of Aratus, Menander, and Euripides'? The argument from the Septuagint's containing the Apocrypha, is so evidently 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 compositions, un- less it can be shown, that Christ and his apostles did sa?iction 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, noio exists of their supernatural character, must have been developed in the age of the Apostles. Their inspiration must have been approved by men who gave unques- tionable evidence 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 labor for that which satisfieth not.

Letter XIII

Rejection of the Apocrypha by the Jews. — Faith of the Primitive Church not a standard to us.

To you and all your predecessors in this field of controversy, the conduct of the Jewish Church to whom were committed the oracles of God in regard to the Apocrypha, has been so serious- ly embarrassing that your efforts to explain it in consistency with your own views of their divine original, are a powerful illustra- tion of the desperate expedients to which men may be driven by

206 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

extremity of circumstances, who are resolved not to receive the truth. The rule of Augustine is so palpably just, that the author- ity of a book must depend on the testimony of contemporary witnesses, that the absence 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 intracta- ble conduct of the sons of Abraham. In the true spirit of some of the venerable Fathers of Trent, Bellarmin speaks of the Jew- ish synagogue with great contempt, representing it to be, from its very name, a collection of cattle rather than men. And Campi- anus, 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 in- creased after the books had reached the charmed number of the letters. Others again have endeavored 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 the theories which have ever been invented, that which you have borrowed and endorsed from Mel-

* 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.halh 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 Campianusand Bellarmin upon this subject, see Rainold. Cens. Lib. Apoc. Tom. i. p. 96, &LC.

t This opinion is attributed by Melchior Canus to Cochlaeus, but the per- sons among the Jews who did receive these books have never been brought to light.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 207

chior Canus is beyond controversy the most unfortunate.* It turns upon a distinction which I have already shown to be false, which Bellarmin himself saw to be untenable, and consequently passed without discussion, and which, as presented by you, is ab- solutely ya^a/ 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 tribunal competent to enlarge the extent of the canon. They did not receive them, you admit, but as no body commissioned to pronounce an authorita- tive 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 di- vine, and positively rc/cc^m^ it as a human composition.

Now, sir, you have only to turn to your second letter to per- ceive 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 commissiond by God for the express purpose of teach- ing the faithful what were the inspired books. In your first and subsequent letters, conclusive evidence 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 existence 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 internal 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 Susan- nah, together with the story of Bel and the Dragon, you represent as having been originally parts of Daniel. The additions, too, to the book of Esther you make to be a portion of the book itself. From these statements it is evident that when the Jewish canon was settled, some of the Apocryphal books were in being Here,

* "Aliud est enim non accipere, aliud rejicere. Certe Judaei intra suum can- onem hos libros publica authoritate minirae receperunt, tametsi non nulli ex illis, sacros et Divinos esse credideiint." — Lib. ii. cap. x.

It is one thing not to receive, and another to reject. Certainly the .Tews did not receive these books into their canon, and yet some of them believed them to be sacred and divine.

208 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

then, is a curious question ; if a body specially commissioned to teach the faithful what where the inspired books, should omit to enumerate among them any that were truly inspired, would not such omission be exactly tantamount to positive rejection ? It would be vain to say that no sufficient evidence existed that the omitted books were really inspired. The very object of appoint- ing such a body is to afford that evidence ; neither can it be pre- tended that the books, though in being at the time, might be unknown to the tribunal, since according to the very terms of its commission, it was authorized to pronounce with infallible cer- tainty what books were inspired. Hence, such a body must have known all the inspired books that were extant at the time, and its failure to insert any book in the canon, becomes, by conse- quence, a damning proof of its human and earthly origin. Now if an infallible council settled the canon of the Jewish Church, and such, we have seen, is your hypothesis ; if at the time when the canon was settled, Baruch, Wisdom, and Tobit, the additions to Daniel and the additions to Esther, were extant; if it is unde- niably certain that these compositions were not inserted, is not the conclusion irresistible that they were rejected by a body com- petent to determine their character ? Will you be pleased to ex- plain upon any other hypothesis how it happened that if Baruch was an integral portion of Jeremiah, the great synagogue separat- ed it from the rest of the book 1 Let me ask you again, if Wisdom were written by Solomon, and was, as you say, truly inspired, why did it not receive at the hands of the council the same treatment with Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles? How comes it that the song of the three children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, did not pass into the canon with the rest of Daniel? Why were the additions to the book of Esther ex- cluded, and why was Tobias, your darling Tobias, prevented from being enrolled among the authoritative documents of faith ?

One of two things is intuitively evident, either the tribunal which settled the canon of the Jews was not competent to teach the faithful what were the inspired books, or Baruch, Wisdom, and Tobit, were rejected. If you accede to the first proposition, you contradict your repeated declarations that the Jews did not reject the Apocrypha, since, according to this view, they must

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 209

liave rejected some of them. So that self-contradiction awaits you whichever horn of the dilemma you choose to adopt. If, however, you admit what upon the preceding statement of the case cannot be consistently denied, that any portion of the Apocrypha was rejected, then, according to your own hypothe- sis, you have the testimony of an infallible body against the inspiration of the rejected portion. This reduces you to a still more deplorable dilemma; and how you will extricate yourself, it is impossible for me to determine. On the one hand, the great synagogue of Ezra stares you in the face, pronouncing with infallible certainty that certain books are not inspired ; on the other, you are damned by the Council of Trent, if you do not receive it as infallible truth that these same books are in- spired. *' When Greek meets Greek, then comes the tug of war."

My object in exposing the suicidal character of your argu- ment, is simply to shovv, that upon every view of the case the testimony of the Jewish Church is clear and decided against the inspiration of the books whose divine authority you have un- dertaken to defend. That testimony you cannot evade. Your nice distinctions are wholly ineffectual, and if you cannot rebut the decision of the Jewish Church by the authoritative instruc- tions of Christ or his apostles, your cause is hopeless. Let the reader, then, bear distinctly in mind, that what you are required to prove is the historical fact, that our blessed Saviour, or his inspired Apostles, committed the Apocrypha to the Christian Church as infallible standards of faith. Up to the time of Christ, we find them treated as human compositions ; and we must continue to regard them in the same light, unless it can be shown that our great prophet has otherwise instructed the church.

In your pretended refutation of the second argument of my original essay, you undertake the hopeless task of proving that the Primitive Church received these books from the hands of the apostles, as inspired jnodiutions. Your reasoning, if a series of assumptions can be called reasoning, may be reduced to the following syllogism : Whatever books the Primitive Church received as inspired, must have been received upon the authority

10*

210 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

of Christ and his apostles. The Apocrypha were received by the Primitive Church as inspired ; therefore, they must have been received upon the authority of Christ and his apostles. The testimony of the Primitive Church is consequently your medium of proof; a testimony, in this case, which, as we shall subsequently see, is not pointed and direct, but only mediate and inferential.

This argument or syllogism is grossly at fault in two partic- ulars. In the first place, the major proposition is not logically necessary, and you have not attempted to show the connection between the subject and predicate. For aught that appears to the contrary, the primitive Christians might have received books as inspired without the sanction of Christ or his apostles. Cer- tain it is that you have nowhere proved that they could not have done it. You tell us that, " if they united in receiving those works as inspired, then is our (the Papal) cause fully sustained; for they would not have thus united unless they had been taught by the apostles that these books formed a part of the word of God." How does it appear that they would not have united ex- cept upon the specified condition? All that I can find in the shape of proof is, "that they were tried in the furnace of perse- cution, and laid down their lives by thousands, rather than swerve one jot or tittle from the truth handed down to them !" That they were exposed to dangers, sufferings, and death, is evident, but that this proves any thing more than the sincerity of their convictions, I am utterly unable to perceive. We may grant that they would not have added to the sacred canon books which they did not believe to be inspired ; but then the question is, whether their belief was always founded on apostolic teaching? Might they not be mistaken as to what Christ and his apostles had actually taught? If they were fallible, liable to be misled by desio-nincr men, the crafts of the devil, or the deceitful workings of their own hearts, they might have been perfectly sincere, and yet have received error in the place of truth. Even in the days of the apostles, and among the congregations collected by their labors, the mystery of iniquity had begun to work ; and none can read the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians without being deeply convinced that the faith of professing Christians was not always

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 211

adjusted to the standard of inspired instruction. Paul admon- ishes the Ephesian Elders, that even among themselves should men arise speaking perverse things to draw disciples after them; and the exhortations to the seven churches of Asia reveal any thing but a necessary connection between the actual belief of the people, and the lessons which they had received from in- spired teachers. The faith, consequently, of the primitive Christians, is an exceedingly uncertain medium through which to arrive at the doctrines of Christ and his apostles; and yet, un- less there be an exact correspondence between them — unless the one answers to the other, as an image corresponds to its original, tlie seal to its impression, the purpose of your argument is not answered. You infer that such must have been the doctrine of Christ, because such v/as the faith of the church. Now if there be any possibility of error or deception on the part of the church, the force of your conclusion is proportionably weakened. It may be true, as a matter of fact, that the primitive church did not receive any other canon but that of Christ and his apostles ; but then, in order to determine this point, it must be previously known what books our Saviour received, and what books the primitive church received. When the documents included in their repective canons are fully ascertained, and each canon be- comes consequently known, we can then compare them, and pro- nounce upon their mutual agreement or discrepancy. But if one of the canons be unknown^ I see no clew by which a knowledge of the other will enable us to resolve our difficulties. It is true that the canon of Christ and his apostles ought to be the canon of the Christian Church, but he who could reason from right to reality, from what should be to what is, will find himself halting on many a lame conclu&ion. Now in the present case, your pro- fessed object is to ascertain tvhat books Christ and his apostles delivered to the church as the word of God : this is the unknoum fact to be settled. You attempt to settle it by appealing to the faith of the primitive Christians. Your argument, of course, depends on the assumption that the primitive Christians believed nothing but what Christ and his apostles actually taught ; and of this assumption, the only proof which you furnish, goes no further than to establish the sincerity of the primitive disciples;

212 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

a point which can answer your purpose only on the gratuitous hypothesis, that none can be in error and at the same time sin- cere, or that none can be deceived without being also necessarily hypocrites. When you shall have succeeded in proving that honesty and mistake are incompatible terms, mutually contradic- tory and destructive of each other, then, and not till then, your argument will have something of logical coherence. To put the weakness of your reasoning in a clearer light : if it were admit- ted, which, however, cannot be done consistently with truth, that the early Christians did, in fact, believe that the Apocry- phal books were inspired, this would be a moral phenomenon demanding explanation. In all reasoning upon testimony, the principle of cause and effect lies at the basis of the process. A witness simply puts us in possession of the convictions of his own mind. These convictions are an effect, for which the constitu- tion of our nature prompts us to seek an adequate cause, and when no other satisfactory solution can be given but the reality of the facts to which he himself ascribes his impressions, then we admit the existence of the facts. But if any other cause can be assigned, the testimony should not command our assent. If a man afflicted with the jaundice should testify that the walls of a house were yellow, we might be fully persuaded of the sincerity of his own belief; but as an adequate cause, apart from the reality of the fact, could be assigned for his conviction, we should not feel bound to receive his statement. Two questions, conse- (^uently, must always arise in estimating the value of testimony; 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? The second respects the cause of these con- victions: are there any known principles which can account for them without an admission of the facts to which the w^itnesses attribute them ? When we are satisfied that the witnesses are sincere, and that no causes apart from tiie reality of the facts can be assigned in the case, then the testimony is entitled to be received without hesitation. Such being the laws which regu- late the value of testimony, you were bound, after having shown that the primitive Christians believed the Apocrypha to be in- spired— you were bound to show, in addition, that no other as-

. APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 213

signable cause could satisfactorily account for this belief, this moral effect, but the authority of Christ and his apostles.

In the mean time, it may be well to apprize you of the fact, that the actual faith of the primitive church, as such, is not received by Protestants as an authoritative standard of truth. There is always a previous inquiry into the grounds of that faith, and if they should be found weak, futile, or insufficient, thinking men feel no more obligation to reason badly, because good men before them have done so, than to disregard any of the sacred principles of justice, because distinguished saints have fallen into grievous sins. The Church of Jesus Christ, in the present day, does not believe in the Divine authority of those books which it admits to be canonical, because the ancient church regarded them in the same light ; but because there is satisfactory evidence that they were composed by men who wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. The esteem in which they were held by the first Christians, amounts to nothing more than a presumption that there was sufficient proof of their supernatural origin ; but that proof itself, and not the effect which it had on the minds of others, must be the ultimate his- torical grounds of faith. Historical testimony puts us in posses- sion of this proof; it lays before us the facts upon which the primitive Christians formed their judgment, and puts us as nearly as possible in the same relative situation with themselves, so that we can form an opinion upon the same evidence which was first submitted to their understandings. History bridges over the chasm of time, and makes us contemporary with the events which it sets in order before us. Hence it is absolutely false to say that the church now receives any document as inspired, because the church anciently received it ; the church now has the same facts in history, which the church anciently saio and heard, and consequently founds its judgment upon the same data. The only difference is in regard to the medium through which the knowledge of the facts is reached ; but the ultimate ground of faith is the same in both cases. If, for example, I were asked, why I received the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, as an inspired composition, I would answer, not because the primitive church received it — that would only create a presump-

214 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE ,

tion in its favor ; but because there is satisfactory proof that Paul wrote it, and equally conclusive evidence that Paul attested by miracles his supernatural commission as a teacher of the faithful. Novv, sir, if you could adduce any adequate historical testimony that Christ and his apostles ^«ye their sanction to the Apocrypha as inspired compositions, you would then be able to adduce a sufficient ground of faith. I have already admitted, that wherever a document can be shown to have been written by persons empowered to achieve miracles as the proofs of their commission, or wherever a document can be shown to have received the approbation and sanction of those who were super- naturally commissioned, the historical evidence of its inspiration is complete. If you could, therefore, produce from the sacred Scriptures, or from any contemporary writers worthy of credit, direct statements of the fact, or of other facts necessarily involv- ing it, that Christ and his apostles delivered to the Church the documents in question as the word of God, you would then allege something to the purpose. But, sir, not a particle of such testimony have you been able to adduce. You have sim- ply inquired what the primitive Church believed; and without pausing to investigate the grounds of its belief, or the possibility of mistake, you have boldly assumed that it could believe nothing but what it had received upon inspired authority.

But, in the second place, your syllogism is just as faulty in the minor, as it is in the major proposition. It so happens, as a matter of fact, that the primitive Christians did not receive any other canon but that of the Jews, which was also the canon of Christ and his apostles. They might have received another, so that their endorsement of a book is no necessary proof of its Divine authority; but as it is historically true that they did not, your minor proposition is utterly without support, and my ori- ginal assertion, that the unbroken testimony of the Church for four centuries is against the inspiration of the Apocrypha, re- mains unshaken, notwithstanding your multiplied quotations ani elaborate trifling in attempting to refute it.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 215

Letter XIV

The existence of the Apocrypha in ancient versions of the Scriptures, no proof of inspiration, — Not quoted by the Apostolic Fathers.

That the primitive church ascribed to the Apocrypha the same canonical aatliority which they were accustomed to attrib- ute to Moses, the Prophets, and the Psahns, you endeavor to col- lect from the facts, that these books were embodied in all the ancient versions of the Bible, and quoted by the fathers, and not only quoted, but quoted distinctly as sacred Scripture. "The manner," you inform us, " in which the Christians of the first four centuries acted in regard to these writings, shows that they were left to them by the apostles as inspired." The hrsi jJ ecu li- arity in their manner of acting which discloses the sentiments of the primitive disciples, is to be found in the circumstance, Avhich you have gratuitously assumed, that ^^ all these books, or parts of books, were contained in the Old Testament as used by the early Christians in the infancy of the church.''

I shall not here interrupt the tenor of the argument to expose the rashness of your inferences on the subject of some of these ancient versions. It is enough for my present purpose to ob- serve, that, upon the supposition that the facts are precisely as you have stated them to be, the conclusion by no means follows which you were anxious to deduce. You have already expressed the opinion, that antecedently to the advent of the Saviour, when there was no satisfactory proof of their Divine inspiration, and no tribunal commissioned to enlarge the dimensionsof the canon, and when, of course, they could not have been received as any portion of the rule of faith, these very books were yet embodied in the version of the Seventy. How does it happen that the Hel- lenistic Jews could incorporate into their translation of the ca- nonical books, others which they were known not to receive as inspired, while the same privilege is denied to the Christian church? What is there in the change of dispensation that shall make it a certain proof after the advent of Christ, that a work is believed to be inspired if found in justaxposition to those which are confessed to be Divine, when the same collocation, under

216 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

the previous economy carried no such inference along with it? I had always supposed that the major proposition of an argument should be universally true, and that when any particular case was adduced which proved an exception to its general applica- tion, the argument ceased to be conclusive. Reasoning is only a felicitous method of applying to the parts, that which is con- fessed to be true of the whole, and when it is found from experi- ence, or any other source of information, that the process of arrangement has been wrong, and that the separate elements do not possess the properties which constitute the class, the leading proposition becomes false, and the argument is said to be re- futed. In the present case, you evidently reason on the princi- ple that whatever books are embraced in the same volume with those which are confessedly inspired, must be believed bythose who sanction the combination, to be inspired also. Now, to assert that there are numerous instances in which such a mixture of the human and Divine has been sanctioned, as the proposition supposes to be impossible, is to accumulate refutations on each other. In addition to the case of the Jews, which has already been adduced, the Greeks to this day reject the Apocrypha from the canon, although they give them a place in their copies of the Scriptures. Who believes that because these books are found in the authorized English translation of the Bible, there- fore the Church of England recei^^es them as inspired? or that the large body of Protestant churches who adopt that translation, defer to their authority as supreme? There can be little doubt that the incorporation of the Apocrypha with the Septuagint, was the real cause of their being subsequently embraced in the later translations of the Scriptures. The old Italic version was made from that of the Seventy, and, of course, contained precisely the same books with the original from which it was made. The Hebrew Scriptures were " quite inaccessible," says Bishop Marsh, " to Latin translators in Europe and Africa, during the first three centuries. In those ages the Jews themselves who in- habited Greece, Italy, and Africa, read the Old Testament in the Greek version. Thus the Greek Bible became to the Latin Christians a kind oi original, from which they derived their own

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 217

translations of the Scriptures."* If the Peschito version was, as it is said to have been, made directly from the Hebrew, it could not originally have contained the Apocrypha; these books must have been subsequently added from the Greek copies in which they were circulated. Whatever currency, consequently, these spurious documents obtained among the early Christians, is due to the Septuagint ; and as upon your own hypothesis their insertion in that version took place previously to the advent of Christ, when the books were confessed not to be inspired, we must look for other motives besides an appeal to Divine authority for the amalgamation of human and Divine in the same volume. If, however, you prefer the hypothesis, that the mixture in ques- tion was made subsequently to the incarnation of the Saviour, after the apostles and apostolic fathers had fallen asleep, the phe- nomenon can be satisfactorily explained, without resorting to the fiction of inspiration.

There are obvious considerations, apart from any convictions of Divine authority, that would lead the Christians, especially of the third century, as well as the Jews, to a diligent study of these books. They do not seem to have been much in vogue in the Christian church for the first two centuries after Christ. We find scarcely any allusion to them in the Apostolic Fathers, no quotations in Justin Martyr, and no certain proof that they were generally read. But a mystic spirit soon corrupted the piety of the church ; a spirit of dreamy superstition, similar to that which Lightfoot attributes to the Jews of the second Temple, which these books were well adapted to foster, and which, as it gained ground, would prompt its victims to regard their follies as signal illustrations of piety. This congeniality with a false spirit of religion, coupled with their relations to the history of God's an- cient people, would give them a popularity which some of them certainly did not deserve; they would be regarded with that sort of religious veneration with which the Christians of the present day contemplate the works of distinguished Divines, and would be bound up in the same volume with their Bibles, for conve- nience of reference, just as the Scotch combine in the same

* Marsh, Conip. View, p. 99.

218 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

book, the Scriptures of God and the metrical version of the Psalms by Rous.

It may be well to observe, moreover, that this argument from -ancient versions proves entirely too much ; it proves, if it prove any thing, that the books which Rome herself rejects as Apocry- phal, must be a part of the canon. The third and fourth books of Esdras, together with the prayer of Manasses, are actually em- bodied in that very translation of the Bible, which the Council of Trent pronounces to be authentic* The fourth book of Esdras, though not found in the Septuagint, is found in existing manu- scripts of the Vulgate. The third book of Esdras occurs in the principal copies of the Septuagint, with the exception of the Complutensian edition and those which are derived from it. The prayer of Manasses is inserted m manuscripts of the Vulgate, at the end of Chronicles, and is certainly found in some editions of the Septuagint. The third book of Maccabees, too, is to be found in the most ancient manuscripts of the Septuagint noio extant. Why, then, are not these books canonical? They are introduced into approved copies of the Bible; they occur in translations which the early Christians were accustomed to con- sult; and if they could be embodied in the same volume with the canonical Scriptures, without being received as inspired, I see not why the same privilege might not be extended to Wisdom, Tobit, and Judith. Dismissing, therefore, your argumsnt from the case of the ancient versions, as less than nothing and alto- gether lighter than vanity, I proceed to that upon which Bel- larmin rests the strength of your cause : the quotations from the Christian 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 a loss to under- stand whether you regard a quotation, though unaccompanied with any expressions of respect that would seem to imply inspi- ration, 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 profuse in bringing forward instances in which there is nothing stronger than a mere accommodation of

* Marsh, Comp. View. pp. 108, 9 (note)

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 219

the words of the Apocrypha, as in adducing passages which seem to invest them with a sacred authority. Bellarmin, 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 senti- ment which it contains, without any necessary 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 heathen > 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 numerous extracts which, if they were faithfully given, which 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 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, in the very small compass of that single discourse, you will find 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 passage 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 Chris- tian, gay and grave, lively and severe, indiscriminately quoted in the margin ; and yet these men would have thought it a most preposterous conclusion, that because they enriched their own

* Disputat. de cont. lib. i. c. x. vol. i. p. 42. His words are, " Apostoli enim poterant sine aliis testimoniis declarare libros illos esse canonicos, quod et fecerunt : alio qui numquam Cyprianus et Clemens et alii quoscitabimus, tarn constanter dixissent eos esse Divinos."

220 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

compositions, pZem's 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 hum- ble 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 my own published sermons upon the Vanity and Glory of Man, written long after my essay on the Apocrypha had been anonymously committed to the press, an extract is made from the book of Wisdom ; and in my unpublished lectures upon the Origin and Progress of Idolatry, the splendid Apocryphal passage on the same subject is introduced with com- mendation 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 themselves can prove nothing to the purpose ; it is the manner in which the quotations are made, and the e/ir/s to which they are applied. If the Apocry- pha are not quoted as infallible standards of faith, of equal au- thority with Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms, or if there are not circumstances attending the quotations which show indispu- tably that the writers regarded them as the word of God, from whose decision there was 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 philoso- phers and poets. Why the ancient Fathers should be denied the privilege conceded to all writers, of adorning their compositions with elegant expressions or judicious sentiments, which might chance to strike them in the compass of their reading, it is diffi- cult for me to comprehend. 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 honor 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 expres- sion that indicates the light in which the original works were

APOCRVrHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 221

regarded. If, therefore, your extracts had been accurate, you would have gained nothing but the gratification of an idle vanity in the display of your learning. But by some strange fatality of blundering, which seems like an evil genius to attend you, you have only exhibited your ignorance of the Fathers and the tongues in which their works were written. That the reader may be able to form an adequate estimate of the nature and value of your ser- vices as a literary critic, I shall examine your extracts from the aposlolic Fathers with a degree of attention which they do not deserve. And first from Barnabas :

yteysi yag o TCQOcprjTTjg stil tov lagatjX' ovui tt] ipV/^J] uvtojp otl fjs- PovXsvviai (jovltjv norijgav y,ad^ savTcav siTiovisg' d)](T(t)/j,EV tov dixaiov^ oTt Sv(ixQi](noq riy.iv EdTi, But what saith the Prophet against Israel : Woe be to their sons, because they have taken wicked counsel against themselves, saying, let us, therefore, lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn. — Barnab. Epist. § 6.

" This passage," you tell us, '•' is composed of two texts, Isaias iii, 9, ' TFoe 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. Barnabas 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 Wis- dom ; 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 statement, that the 7choIe passage as quoted by Barnabas occurs almost verbatim in the book of Isaiah as found in the version of the Seventy? This, as we 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 intro- duced 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 generously and magnanimously confessed your fault, I should have passed the matter over with- out any notice. If you had not obliquely insinuated a doubt whether Barnabas drew from the Septuagint or not, when the thing is as plain as any thing of that sort can possibly be made,

232 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

I should have given you credit for an honesty and candor to which I am afraid your lame apology shows you not to be entitled. " Candor," you tell us, vvith a ludicrous gravity, when you were about to act with a very questionable regard to its precepts, "re- quires that I should make a remark on a passage in my last let- ter." The passage to which you refer is the one before us — now what is the remark ? "I did not at that moment (when writ- ing the letter) recollect that the passage from Isaias was one in which the translation of the Septuagint varies from the Hebrew as we liave it now. St. Barnabas does not quote the Septuagint exactly, but he approaches 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 Septu- agint:

OvuL TTj ipi'xi] avTMV, SioTi ^t[jovl.BVVJUi ^ovXt^v ttovijQuv y.a& sav- Tfov, eiTTOVieg' drjcrmfxev tov dixaiov, on dv(TXQt](TTog i/fiiv fort, — Isaiah iii. 9, 10.

Now the only difference in the passage as quoted by Barna- bas, and as found in Isaiah, is in the fifth word, the causal particle dioTi — of which, in Barnabas, the first syllable is wanting. But the part of the sentence which you ascribe, in your third letter, to Wisdom, is, verbatim ct literatim, the same in the Father and 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. Barna- bas says 8y](jM}xiv Tov di-Aaior. In Wisdom it is written, Evidgsvaco- jiiEr ds Tov dixfuor. But in your fourth letter the omission of a sin- gle syllable is sufficient to raise a doubt — makes it only probable that a quotation is intended. You were quite confident that a sentence is taken from Wisdom when the leadino- 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 every thing but one poor harmless syllable, are ex- actly preserved If, sir, you could find passages in the Fathers so nearly corresponding to passages in the Apocrypha, as those of Barnabas and Isaiah, we should not be troubled with your <loubts : it would bo no longer a "possible, nay a probable" mat-

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 223

ter 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 Barnabas quoted from Isaiah, it is irresistibly evident that he could not have quoted from Wisdom. Instead then of its being so very clear that the good father " quotes in the same sen- tence, and as of equal inspired authority, the book of Isaiah con- tained in the canon of the Jews, and that of Wisdom, one of those you boldly declare to be of no more authority than Sene- ca'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. You have begun your career under inauspicious omens, and I apprehend that you will be satisfied, before this discussion is con- cluded, that an evil genius attends you, whom all your sacerdotal enchantments will prove unavailing to exorcise.

Your second attempt is like unto your first. \n xix* of this same Epistle of Barnabas, a passage occurs which you have dis- covered to be a quotation from the book of Ecclesiasticus, (iv. 28, 31,) though you have not been at the pains in this particular instance to account for the manifest discrepancies between the son of Sirach and the Father, by a *' varying reading'^ of the text. It is never doubtful whether the Ajwcrypha were quoted ; but as Papists have a cordial abhorrence of the Bible, they are

* The translation of Barnabas is as follows : " Thou shalt not be forward to ppeak ; for the mouth is the snare of death ; strive wiih thy soul for all thy might. Reach not out thy hand to receive, and withhold it not when thou shouldst give." The originals are as follows:

Barnabas — Ovk eijrj npoyXojjrros ' naytg yap aToixa Qavarov. Cfcov SvvacraL vnep rrju xpu-^riv (T)V ayvevatii. Al>j yivov np juv to )\a3eiv ckteivov raj '^cipas. ~pos 6c to

Ecclesiasticus — Ew? tov Ouvutov vtpi -tji ayrjleiac^ Kai Ki'jOoj 0 Qeog

TtoAtnr)aF.i vncp cm). ^Jlr] yipiiv rpciy^vs ev yXiorrnrj cnv^Kni vcoOpig Ktii irapciiievos £v T i^ti (pyoii crov, islri caroi rj ■)(£to auv EKTtTnnEir] cii T.y Xitj3r.ii', Kai ev to) aTTOciSovai avvtCTCiXjiei tj.

The version of Ecclesiasticus is in these words: " Strive for juHicc for thy soul, and even unto death fight for justice, and God will overlhrow thy enemies /'or (hre. Be not Iiasty in thij tongue; ar.d slack and lemi.^s in thy works. Let vot thy hand be stretched out to receive, and shut tchen thou shouldst give" \ havp e^iven the TtnUc? ns found in A. P. V.'? citalidu.

224' ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

slow to discern quotations from the canon among those whom

they honor.

It will be perceived, upon consulting the original, that your translation of Barnabas and the Doway version of Ecclesiasticus, which you have copied without change, are neither of them con- sistent with the original text. According 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 ital- icized, is the exhortation to strive ; but unfortunately no such ex- hortation is found in Barnabas. The good Father is insisting upon the duties of benevolence, charity, and temperance, and in the passage before us exhorts his readers to cultivate chastity, even beyond the resources of their natural strength. There is nothing in the Greek that can, by any possibility, be made to correspond with the sentence in your version : ''strive with thy soul for all thy might J^

The conjectural reading of Cotelerius, which you seem to have followed, vtkq trfi ipvyj]q crov ayojvsvaeig, is liable to serious objections. In the first place, the word aycorfvaeig, which that critic would substitute for the received reading, ayvsvaeig, be- longs 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 legitimaate word to express the idea of striving, is uyoivi^o}. In the second place, the new reading gives a sense wholly un- suited to the connection in which the passage is found. It occurs among a series of earnest exhortations to specific duties. It is preceded by solemn admonitions against severity to servants, avarice and volubility, and succeeded by directions equally defi- nite and precise. Now to introduce an abstract proposition, which covers a multitude of duties, in the midst of specific, defi- nite and precise instructions, is, to say the least of it, exceedingly awkward. Tlie old reading, which makes the passage an ex- hortation to the practice of chastity, suits the nature of the con- text, and, on that account, is to be decidedly preferred. In the third place, there is no need of emendation. The preposition seems to be used in its common acceptation, when followed by the accusative, of excess, and ipvyr,v may be regarded as a com-

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 225

pendious expression for the powers of the man. This word is frequently used to designate the whole- man, and in such con- nections is equivalent to avd-gmnog, and every Greek scholar knows that vjieg uv&Qoinov may be properly rendered " beyond liuman strength." (Viger De Idiotismis, c. 9, § 9, Reg. 1.

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 re- sources— 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 Sirach? " Strive for truth even unto death :" a marvellous coincidence with the exhortation to purity ; an extraordinary quotation, when there is not a single word in the two clauses alike. One is ex- horting to stability of opinion, and the other to innocence of life. The next coincidence is the exhortation in relation to the tongue. In the clauses containing this advice, the principal words, as found in Greek, are widely different in their meaning. Barnabas uses a word (Ttgo/lojaaog) which denotes excessive 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 rivility of speech, and uses expressions which, when literally translated, amount to this : " Be not rough with your tono-ue." The Latin version surely should not supersede the Greek, and I know of no copies of the Septuagint that give the reading laxvg which the Latin translators seem to have followed,* though some copies do give -d-gaavg. Either of these readings harmonizes exactly with the sL\cceeding verse : " Be not as a lion in thy house nor frantic among thy servants." This sen- tence illustrates what he means by being " rough-tongued ;" it is to betray the fury and ferocity of the lion among those who arc dependent upon us. The coincidence, then, in this passage

* I say, seem to have followed, because the phrase adopted by the Vulgate citatus in lingua, is evidently susceptible of a rendering consistent with the common reading : " Be not violently excited in thy tongue or speech."

n

226 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

between Barnabas and Ecclesiasticus, is just the coincidence be- tween an admonition not to be loquacious or excessively talka- tive, and an admonition to overcome acerbity 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 Sa- viour, in Acts XX. 35, and which is likewise suggested by nu- merous passages in the heathen pages 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" (Oneirocr. iv. 3). ^^illian says, " It is bet- ter to enrich others than to be rich ourselves" (H. V. xix. 13), and a similar sentiment occurs in Aristotle, Nichom. iv. 1.* Coincidences of this sort, evidently show, that such aphorisms must be regarded as the spontaneous suggestions of the niind to those who observe, with the eye of the moralist, the vicissitudes of men and manners. The same process of thought by which they become 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 Johnson, '' 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 favor 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 consequently

* For many striking illustrations of the same sentiment to be found in va- rious authors, the reader is referred to Kuinoel, Wolfius and Wetstein, on Acts XX. 35.

APOCRYPHA DISCrSSED AMI REFUTED. 227

determine with certainty, what precisely were the words which the Father employed. You seem to be quite certain that he had his eye upon Tobit xii. 9 — " For alms delivereth from death." The whole passage to which you refer in Polycarp, is in these words: " Quum notestis benefacere polite deferre : quia eZeemo- syna de morte liberal. Omnes vobis invicem subjecti estote : conversalionem vestram irreprehensibilem habentes in gentibus."* In commenting 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 sentence which suited his present purpose, just as Paul adopted from Me- nander the memorable aphorism, " evil communications 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 pre- sumption that the one passage was suggested by the other. Sol- omon's context is, ''treasures of icickedncss 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 He- brew word which Solomon employs for righteousness (nj:?'i2£) is not unfrequently rendered by the Seventy, fXei]fiocn'vr} (alms), the very word which is found in the Greek translation of this passage of Tobit. If, then, Tobit was originally written in Hebrew, as was doubtless the case, there being Hebrew copies extant in the time of Origen, the probability is that the same word which occurs in Proverbs, was used in this place. The Jews were ac- customed to interpret the passage in Solomon precisely as it has

* The passage may be thus translated : " When if. is in your power to do good, defer it not, for alms delivereth from death. Be all of you subject one to another, having your conversation honest among the Gentiles."

228 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

been rendered by the Greek translators of Tobit (RosenmuUer in Prov. x. 2). 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 sup- posed, from the Greek. Two of these have been published, one by Sebastian Munster, and another by Paul Fagius. Huetius 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 Polyglott, 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 pu?ictuati?n, with the passage in Proverbs, which is certainly a strong pre- sumption that Solomon's Hebrew and Tobit's Greek (or rather his translator's) are precisely equivalent.

Now the question is, which did the Father quote, the Sep- tuagint translation of Solomon, or the Greek translation of To- bit, 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 dixaioavvt] (righteousness), then Solomon, as found in the LXX, was quoted ; if he employed eXiri^ocrvvt] [alms), then the Greek version of Tobit was quoted. How shall we determine which word was employed ? The Latin translation affords no certain clew, since either term might be rendered eleemosyne, both corresponding as they do to the He- brew, and the one always, and the other frequently, meaning the same thing as eleemosyne.

Your next passage is from the first Epistle of Clement to 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 speecially in his eye, Isaiah xlv. 9, and Rom. ix. 19, 20. The idea is one continually occurring in the canonical Scriptures, and I think it doubtful whether the Father had any particular passage in his

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 229

mind ; for his words exactly tally with no one text or combina- tion of texts in the Scriptures. I shall present, however, Cle- ment, Wisdom, and Daniel, that the reader may judge for him- self whether the Father had not as much reference to Daniel as to Wisdom ; and as, in this case, I do not object to your transla- tion, 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 suc- ceeding 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 section of his epistle, and would insinuate the belief that there was something in the passage to favor the idea that 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 CEdi- pus, and the heathen accounts of such devoted men as Codrus, Lycurgus, and Scipio Africanus. A wonderful proof of inspira- tion, truly ! Clement, no doubt, believed the authenticity of the book, 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 will turn to the originals, you will find

* I shall give the whole passage as it appears in Archbishop Wake's trans- lation :

" Nay, and even the Gentiles themselves have given us examples of this kind : for we read how many Kings and Princes, in times of pestilence, 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

230 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

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 Es- ther, that can be remotely] tortured into proof that he deemed the Apocryphal portions to be inspired. He appeals to her his- tory simply as t7'ue, 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 delivered the Apoc- rypha to the Christian church as the oracles of God. If the apostles, in their own writings, said nothing on the subject, this is the age and these the men upon whom, according to Bellar- min himself, we must rely. Contemporary writers or the next generation, this wily Jesuit admits, are the legitimate witnesses of the authenticity of facts. Here, after the apostles had fallen asleep, and the last of those who had seen or been taught by them is gathered to his fathers, there remains not a single inti- mation, 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 penetrate the past, when the only light which could guide us, is withdrawn for- ever ? What witnesses shall we evoke, when those alone who

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 glori- ous 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 their enemies, and she went out exposing herself to danger for rhe love she bare to her country and her people that were besieged ; and the Lord delivered Holo- fernes into the hands of a woman. Nor did Esther, being perfect in faith, ex- pose herself to any less hazard, for the delivery of the twelve tribes of Israel in danger of being destroyed ; for by fasting and humbling 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." — Wake'a Apostol. Fathers, pp. 202-3,

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 231

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 Apocrypha, as you attribute to Christ, nothing can be satisfactorily ascertained afterwards. The witnesses are too far removed from i\\e 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 endeavored to make them break that silence ; your feeble efforts have only recoiled in deep and indelible disgrace upon your own character as a scholar and a critic.

Letter XV

The application of such expressions as ' Scripture,' 'Divine Scripture,' by ancient writers to the Apocrypha, no proof of inspiration.

The only plausible argument, in support of your proposition 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 unfrequently applied to them the same expressions with which they were accustomed to distinguish the canonical records. Upon this point, as I have hinted already, Bellarmin principally 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 lan- guage of the Apocrypha, but also denominate it scripture, some- times without any qualifying epithet, and sometimes with the titles, in addition, sacred, holy, or divine. To infer from a circumstance, like this, that they regarded these works as pos- sessed 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

232 ROMANTST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

scripture is exslusively applicable to inspired compositions ; 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, therfore all scripture must also be neces- sarily inspired, is to assume as true, what will be found, with a single exception, to be invariably false, that the simple converse of an universal affirmative 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 denominated scripture. This burlesque upon 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 precisely as you do in deducing the Divine authority of the books in question, from the application to them of the same titles which are given to the sacred canon. When your argument is stated in the form of syllogism — which, after all, is the real test of conclusive reasoning — it will be found to contain the miserable fallacy of an undistributed middle.

The inspired books are called scripture ; 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 evi- dently 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 supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit. This is unquestionably 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 beinor the con- verse of a statement universally acknowledged to be true. Why, therefore, did you not manfully meet the point, and prepare the way for your multiplied quotations, by showing, at the outset, what is certainly far from evident, that scripture and inspiration

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 233

were coextensive in their import? It is not a little remarkable that you should have expended so much labor 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 unfortunate 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 capable of proving, may be fully granted ; that the books in question were often distinguished by the title of scripture; but it is abroad 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 scripture, &c., were generic terms, as used among the Fathers, having a much larger extension than your argument seems to suppose. While they included as a part of their mean- ing those works which were acknowledged to be the offspring of the Holy Ghost, they were also applied to other departments of composition, in which no other spirit was conceived to predom- inate but the spirit of devotion. Scripture itself is synonymous with writing, and is, consequently, an appropriate term for designating any thing 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 scripture, ^vas employed among the ancients to denote that peculiar 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 meanincr analocrous to that which obtained in the lanoruao;e from which it was derived. It was not only applied to any written document whatever, whether sacred or profane, but was even extended to inscriptions on a tomb.* The Greek word /Q(x(pr} was, perhaps, more general than the English term icriting, as it embraced not only the work of the scribe, but the per-

* See Richardson's Dictionary, word Fcriptiire. II*

234 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

formance of the painter. We are so accustomed, however, to the definite and restricted application 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 Fa- thers themselves seem to have labored under a measure of em- barrassment in selecting, from the general and extensive phrases which were best adapted to the purpose, appropriate 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 accumu- lated so many titles as are found scattered through their writings. The definite word would have been uniformly, at least generally, adopted. But no such definite appellation existed, and they were obliged to employ generic terms in a peculiar and em- phatic sense, when they appealed to their rule of faith. Some- times 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 Testament, the Ancient and New Scriptures, the Ancient and New Oracles, Books of the Spirit, Divine Fountains, Fountains of the Divine Fulness.* In this abundance of phrases, and only a part is given, there is an obvious effort to convey a precise idea by terms which were felt to be general ; a constant endeavor to limit, in a particular case, what, according to the laws of the language, was susceptible of a larger extension. 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 word of God before we can determine whether these titles are bestowed on it in the restricted and emphatic sense, or in their usual and wider signi- fication. That the Fathers were accustomed to use them in

* See a collection of these titles in Paley's Evidences of Christianity, pt. i.

Chapter 9 ^

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 235

both applications, it requires but little acquaintance with their writings to be assured.

Eusebius testifies that Irenaeus, whom you have represented as endorsing the Apocrypha, cited as scripture one of the weak- est performances of ecclesiastical antiquity — the Shepherd of Her- mas. His words are worthy of being fully exhibited : " Nor did he (IrensBus) only know, but he also receives the scripture of the shepherd, saying: Well therefore spake the scrzp^z/re, which says: 'First of all, believe there is one God, who created and formed all things, and what follows.' "* Here it is evident, that scripture means only a written document, and has no reference whatever to any impression of supernatural origin. The mean- ing of Irenneus, as Lardner very justly expounds it,t is exactly this : *' Well spake that writing, work or book, which says." " It is certain," continues the author of the credibility, " that Iren- aeus himself had so used this word /gucfi] or scripture." Giving an account of the Epistle of Clement, written to the Corinthians in the name of the church of Rome, he says : " The church of Rome sent a most excellent scripture (that is, Epistle) to the Corinthians." And afterwards, " from that scripture one may learn the Apostolical tradition of the church." Eusebius himself uses the term ejiiaioh] as synonymous with yoacfri. " Polycarp," says he, " in his scripture to the Philippians, still extant, has made use of certain testimonies taken from the first Epistle of Peter."! Among the Apocryphal books of the New Testament, which he utterly rejects from any reastmable claim to inspired authority, he mentions the scripture of the acts of Paul. Clemens^ of Alexandria,^ who figures largely in your pages, applies the term scriptures to the compositions of the heathen authors, with which Ptolemy adorned his library, as well as to the sacred and canonical books. || V*

If the word were not confessedly general and indefinite, no- thinir 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

* H. E. lib. V. c. 8. t Works, vol. ii. p. 186 (London Ed. 1831).

t IT. E. lib. iv. c. 14. ' ^ H. E. lib. iii. c. 25. |I Sti»m. 1.

236 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

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 convenience 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 denom.i- nated sacred or divine scripture. To say nothing of the fact that such quotations occur, for the most part, after the custom to which allusion has just been made obtained extensive preva- lence, there is abundant evidence that this, and equivalent phra- seology, were often employed to convey the idea o^ religious lit- erature. Divine scripture, in numerous instances, means pre- cisely the same thing as an '''edifying book,'' or a composition upon religious subjects. Dionysius, surnamed the Areopagite, quoting a passage from the Epistles of Ignatius, styles him the Divine Ignatius.* Polycrates, the metropolitan Bishop of Ephe- sus, said of Melito, that " he was governed in ail things by the Holy Ghost. "t 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 scripture, just as the Pontifical laws are called holy to distinguish them from the statutes of Princes. § So, too, the decrees of councils and ihe de- cisions 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 honorable epi- thets with which the Fathers adorn the Apocrypha were not in- tended to convey the idea of inspiration, is, that in some instan- '^ ces those very writers who reject them fi-om the canon, yet quote / them under the same titles. Origen, who in professedly enumer- ^ ating the books which constituted the rule of faith, excluded the ■ Apocrypha from the canon, did not scruple to refer to the Wis- dom of Solomon and of Sirach, to the books of Maccabees, Tobit,

* De Div. Nom. cap. iv. !ect. 9. t Euseb. H. E. lib. v. c.24.

X De Trinjtnt. lib. i. § Rainold, C'ensuva Librovnni Apooiy. vol. i. p. 67.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED, 237

and Judith, as scriptures or the divine word {&siog Xoyog)* Je- rome, whose testimony is as explicit as language can make it, cites a passage from the book of Ecclesiasticus, and calls it di- vine scripture.i Now when we compare his statement concern- ing this book and that of Wisdom, that they should be read for popular edification in life and manners, and not for the establisliing of any doctrine in the church, we understand at once what mean- ing to attach to his laudatory notice of Ecclesiasticus. Epi- i phanius, as Bellarmin 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 scrip- ture,\ a clear and triumphant 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 JEtius.§ He there enumerates the books which constitute the Hebrew canon, then the writings of the New Testament; and having completed his account of the books that were inspired, he mentions Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and such like books as Divine scriptures. His object was to show that iEiius could defend his heresies neither from the books which the church admitted as inspired, nor from those other writ- ings upon religious subjects which were allowed to be read for the purpose of personal 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 Apoc- rypha as sacred scripture, but at the same time he shows une- quivocally that he did not regard them as an authoritative stand- ard of faith. Havino; on one occasion cited a sentence from the book ofTobit, he proceeds to conjinn it by the ^^ testimony o^ truth,'' that is, by a passage from the Acts of jhe Apostles, a ca- nonical book, evidently implying, that though the Apocrypha were Divine scripture, they were not on that account, the word of God. II This same Father also cites the third and fourth books of

* De Princip. ii. 1, opp. 1, p. 79. Conf. Cels. viii. opp. 1. p. 778, &c.

t Epist. 34 ad Julian. I Hteres bO.

(^ H feres 75. Cont. Mi. \\ De Oper. et Elootiios.

238 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

Esdras ; and the argument is just as strong that he regarded them as inspired, though Rome rejects them, as it is in favor of the books in question.

There is another circumstance which, to my mind, settles the matter, that the ancients used the expressions which they apply to the Apocrypha, without intending to commend those documents as inspired. They make a distinction in the authority which was due to books that they expressly honored as Divine. It is evident, that ail 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 variableness neither shadow of turning. Inspiration secures a complete exemption from error, and the Divine testi- mony is entitled to the same consideration whether it be inter- posed to establish a primary or a secondary principle. When- ever God speaks, no matter what may be the subject on which He chooses to address us, His voice is entitled to absolute obe- dience, and we arelas much bound to believe what seems in itself to be of subordinate importance when He proclaims it, as we are to receive the weightier matters of the law. All inspired scripture, therefore, stands on the same footing of authority.* When, there-

* 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 and unca- nonical, 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 ar- ticle. It is a book to which we may appeal in confirmation 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 authorities above stated are those which the council pro- poses to use in confirmation of doctrines (in confirmandis dogmatibus). Every book, therefore, must either he, or not be, acknowledged as a work of authority for the establishment of doctrines. Between its absolute rejection and its ab- solute admission, there is no medium. When the question relates to the estab- lishment of doctrines, a book must have /uZ/ authority for that purpose, or its

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 239

fore, a writer treats one book as of less authority than 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. Junilius, in his Treatise de Partibus Divinae ^ Legis, in speaking of the " authority of the Divine books," ex- pressly declares that " some are possessed of perfect authority, some middle, and some, of none at all." It is impossible that any Christian man, who had the least reverence 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 bish- op in the sixth century, asserts this of books, which, in his day, were received as holy and Divine. The conclusion is unavoida- ble, that in such connections, these words 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 sup- posed to have canonized the Apocryphal books, and of course received them as Divine scripture. Speaking of the books of Maccabees, however, he justifies their reception by the church, chiejly on account of the moral tendency of the history.* It is plain

authority is worth nothing. And hence, the council of Trent, very consistently, ascribed equal authority to them all. No writer, therefore, belonging to the church of Rome, could represent their authority as unequal, wiihowt impugning that decree of the council of Trent."

To the same purport is the following declaration of Lindanus in Panoplia Evang. as quoted by Rainold, Cens. Lib. Apoc. vol. i. p. 203.

" Eos impio se sacrilegio contaminare, qui in Scripturarum Christianarum corpore,quosdam quasi gradus authoritatis conantur locare quodunam,eandem- que spiritus sancti vocem impio humanac stultitia? discerniculo audent in varias impares discerpere ac distribuere authoritatis classes."

They pollute themselves with impious sacrilege, who attempt to establish, in the body of the Christian Scriptures, certain diflerent degrees of authority. That one and the same voice of the Holy Spirit they dare, by impious, petty distinctions of human folly, to distribute into various and unequal classes of authority.

* Augustine says : " Hanc Scripturam quae appellatur Macchabaeorum.non habent Judaei sicut Legem et Prophetaset Psalmos quibus Dominus testimonium perhibit. Sed rccepta est ab ecclesia non inutiliter, si sobrie legatur et audiatur,

240 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

that he could not have regarded them as inspired, since their* inspiration would have been the strongest of all possible reasons for receiving them. He receives them only because they might be profitably 7-ead 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 words and by ancient usage, quite distinct from that of inspiration ; it certainly devolves upon those who adduce the adoption of such expressions by the ancient Fathers as sus- taining the decision of the council of Trent, to prove unanswer- ably that Divine scripture and inspired scripture are uniformly used as synonymous terms by the early writers, or their whole ar- gument falls to the ground. It is one thing to assert that books are Divine, in the sense that they may be profitably read or de- voutly 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 inspira- tion. She affirms that God is the author of these books, and we deny it. The question is not whether the primitive churches read them or not, whether 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 dis- pute 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 differ- ence between the looseness of popular language and the accura- cy of scientific disquisition. As the primitive church entertain- ed no doubts of the exclusive claims of the Hebrew canon, as

maxime propter illos Macchabfeos qui pro Dei lege sicut veri martyres a perse- cutoribus tam indigna atque horrenda perpessi sunt." — Cant. Gaudent. Donat. Lib. 1. C.31.

* De--Ofr. lib. ii. c. 10.

/

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 241

this was a settled matter, there was no danger of being misunder- stood in employing words in a general sense, which had a pecu- liar and emphatic application only to a particular class of books. They were not likely to mislead, 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 di- vines 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 charac- ter of the writings. An argument constructed upon this founda- tion, would prove too much even for Rome : it would authorize Barnabas, Clement, Ignatius, the Apocryphal book of Isaiah, the book of Henoch, and the third and fourth books of Esdras, the writings of Augustine, the canons of councils and the decrees of Popes, to claim a place in the same category with Moses, the Prophets, the Psalms, Evangelists and Apostles. All these re- jected 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 Cyrilf applies to the council of Nice.

It may be, therefore, regarded as indisputably settled, that Divine scripture, and such like expressions, were not equivalent to ^proper name for the canonical books.

If, therefore, we wish to ascertain what were the sentiments of the primitive church in relation to the extent of the canon, we must appeal to more definite sources of information, than a col- lection 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 expressions are not the proper materials for an argument of this sort. Incidental statements, occasionally

* Epist. ad Michirl. Imp. (Rainold. vol. i. p. 201.) t De Trinitate, Lib. i. (Rainold. vol. i. p. 201.)

242 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

dropped in the midst of discourses upon other matters, do not constitute the testimony of the primitive church. That should, manifestly, be sought in those places of the ancient writers, in which they were 'professedly treating of the standard of faith, and avow it as tJieh design to set forth the books which were re- ceived as supernaturally inspired. We have numerous passages in which these books are the subject of discussion ; we have di- vers catalogues, made by different writers and at different times, during the first four centuries, of all the documents which the church received as the rule of faith, in different forms and un- der different circumstances; 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 pas- sages alone, I insist upon it, is the testimony of the primitive church to be sought. In those parts of the Patristical remains where it is the express purpose of the writer to declare what books were believed to be of God, we may expect precision, ac- curacy and care. The witness is put upon the stand, answers, as it were, under oath, and guards his phraseology, provided he be honest, so as to convey an adequate impression of the truth. The astronomer speaks in popular language of the sun's rising and setting, and pursuing his course through the heavens, and yet it would be preposterous to charge him with denying the elemen- tary principles of his science or teaching a system that has long been exploded, because he had employed expressions, which, though sufficiently exact for the ordinary intercourse of life, were not philosophically precise. So, in a loose and familiar ac- ceptation, the primitive Fathers speak of the Apocrypha, as Di- vine scripture, intending to convey no other idea but that they belonged to a class of religious literature, and might be profita- bly studied for personal improvement, and it is equally preposter- ous from such general expressions, to infer that they taught the supernatural inspiration of the books. For the real opinions of the astronomer, you would appeal to his language when he was professedly treating of the heavenly bodies; then you would ex- pect him to weigh his words, to avoid the looseness of popular discourse, and to employ^no terms which were not sufficiently just. So for the rr«/ opinions of the Fathers upon the subject of

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 243

the canon, we should appeal to their statements when they pro- fessedly give us an accurate account or formal catalogue of the inspired works. Then we should expect them to use terms in a strictly scientific sense; and if, in such connections, i\\^. Apocrypha were ever introduced as a part of the word of God, there would be something like testimony in behalf of the preten- sions of Rome. But it is worthy of remark, that, in every case in which the ancient writers used the terms scripture, 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 which God has graciously imparted as the rule of faith, are these spurious records 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 extremi- ties 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 pre- serve your soul from absolute despair by seizing, here and there, upon a few popular expressions, which, by being tortured into a special and restricted sense, may be made to look with some de- gree of favor on your claims. You never seem to be aware of the egregious absurdity of bending the accurate to the loose, in- stead of the loose to the accurate. Upon the same principle, if you should meet with a passage in the private and confidential letter of a man of science, in which he employed the lanoruage of the vulgar, you would at once construe it into the true expo- sition of his system, and make his philosophical treatises succumb to his popular expressions.

There is an apparent discrepancy, and that must be reconciled 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 ex-

244 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

pressions, touching the matter in dispute, dropped from him in the course of conversation upon other subjects, would you feel bound, if you regarded him as a man of veracity who would not really contradict himself, to explain his ^rq/essec? testimony by hisloose conversation, or to reconcile his loose conversation with his pro- fessed testimony 1 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 1 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 remarked 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 well for you to remember the re- mark, " cum Veritas ipsa limatur in disputatione, subtilitas : alia, cum ad opinionem communem omnis accommodatur oratio."

If the plain and obvious principles, which I have briefly sug- gested, be applied to the criticism of the ancient documents which have survived the ravages of time, we shall find that there is not a single record of the first four centuries, which sustains the decision of Trent. The unbroken testimony of that whole period is clearly, decidedly, unanswerably, against that unparal- leled deed of atrocity and guilt. And how else can it be regard- ed but as a downright insult to the understandings of men, when the formal catalogues 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 understand"

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 245

ings of men, to tell us that this is not the voice of antiquity, that these recorded statements are not the ^rwc 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 jp7'ofane. For this, as we have seen, when fairly interpreted, is the real amount of the testimony in favor of the Apocrypha. The ancient church treated them as religious and edifying books, just precisely as the modern church regards the composi- tions of Howe, Owen and Scott. Therefore, we are gravely told, they must be inspired.

When I reflect upon your whole course of argument upon 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 perfectly 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, in which it was directly stated, or some authentic evidence from those who were cotemporary with them, 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 series of quota- tions, which, 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 would seem, that Christ and his apostles delivered the Apocrypha to the Christian church as inspired, 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; therefore, 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 appear 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 actuallij quoted these very books, and pronounced them to be useful and edifying compositions. This is demonstration plain

i246 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

and irrefragable as holy writ, 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 following 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 XVI

Examination of Testimonies.

That the reader may distinctly apprehend how slender is the basis upon which the church of Rome has erected her porten- tous additions to the Scriptures, I proceed to examine, in detail, 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 already been conclusively de- monstrated that your method of procedure is deceitful and falla- cious. But as in the weakness of your attempted refutation, you have only shown the strength of the position, that within the pe- riod 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 harmonious 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 whom you have appealed, co-

APOCRVPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. '247

incided 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 possessed, 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 produced in the beggarly quotations with which you have amused us. Since, however, you have failed, signally failed, as a slight inves- tigation will render indubitable, in your laborious endeavors to prove that the canon of the Fathers was the same with the can- on of Rome, how disgraceful and overwhelming must be your defeat whenever you shall condescend to undertake the discus- sion of the other, your main and leading proposition !

1. The first writer of the 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 Moses, but which you are certain, in defiance of his own unequivocal assertion, must have been condensed from a corresponding passage in the Wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach. It is not, therefore, a question between i/ou and yjie, 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 3foses, that God spoke thus to the first formed man : Be- hold, before you are good and evil, choose the good."* " It might seem," you inform us in your curious and amusing criti- cism upon this passage, "that St. Justin thought that Moses de- clares 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

* EJ((5a^e Kai rj/^as raura to ayiov T7o-)(pr]TtKov Trvevjia Sta Mwo-ews (ptjffav rw nporot Tt^aaOcPTi avOpatTTd} eipricOai otto tov Oeov ovtwj, i6ov irpo Trpoaunov aov to ayaOov Kai to KUKoy- cK^c^ai to ayaOov. Apol. i. §44. p. 69. Faiis edition, 1742.

248 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THK

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, thouorh he does not record the words which elsewhere the Holy and Prophetic Spirit testifies were spoken, or that St. Justin, in fine, erred in memory, confounding one part of Scrip- ture with another. This much is certain, that the words attribu- ted by him to the Holy and Prophetic Spirit, are found in Eccle- siasticus xv., from which they are evidently condensed.

It is not a little singular that the holy Father should have been too accurately acquainted with the Scriptures to commit the mistake, if indeed a mistake it can be called, which his w^ords most obviously seem to imply, and yet, at the same time, have possessed a memory so treacherous and erring as to con- found one part of Scripture with another. The question, too, might naturally be asked, why, i.f the memory only were in fault, it is not just as likely that Justin has confounded what Moses is recorded to have said in the fifteenth and nineteenth verses of the thirteenth chapter of Deuteronomy to his assembled countrymen, with what God announced to the progenitor of the race, as that he has mistaken the son of Sirach for the author of the Penta- teuch. As there exists not a particle of evidence that the name of Moses has been corruptly foisted into the text, we are compelled to acknowledge that the good father, even if he had really, though unconsciously, condensed the passage in question 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 cer- tainly contained in the Pentateuch, though not in the connec- tion in which they are quoted by Justin. Moses nowhere says, totidera 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 transgression. As such a dispensation might be conveniently described in the very words which Justin has quoted, and as Moses actually employed them in the thirtieth

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 249

chapter of the book of Deuteronomy,* it is no rash presumption to suppose that they were simply accommodated, in the passage before us, to express the condition in which man was placed, as Paul accommodates a portion of the same chapter in his beauti- ful description of the economy of grace, t The point which Jus- tin had in view, was to prove the freedom of the human will, a point necessarily involved in a state of probation, and which, therefore, would be sufficiently established by showing 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 paraphrase his meaning — "it appears from the Scriptures, that man is a responsible, voluntary agent, because, when originally 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 belonged to him. The very language which Moses employed in a different connec- tion, 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 befv:>re him the bless- ing and the curse, in the garden of Eden. "| If this view of the passage be correct, there is evidently no necessity of contradict- ing the statements of Justin himself, and of making him quote from one book when he professes to have borrowed from another. You hare consequently not succeeded, and I may venture to assert that you will never succeed in bringing up a single excep- tion 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 makcth the least mention of them at all." This is certainly astonishing, since in his Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, the subject invited 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

* Verses 15 and 19. t Vide Romans x. 6,7, 8.

X The Editor of Justin has accordingly remarked, in a note upon the pas- sage— " Si sensus consideretur, satis haec congruunt cum iis quae Dcus Adamo dixit."

12

•250 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

ill 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 rejection of inspired documents, after satisfactory proof had been furnished that they proceeded from God. Justin reproaches the Jews with their obduracy and malice, with their deliberate contempt of the light of truth, and their fraudulent suppression of Messianic texts in the Prophets and the Psalms,* but not a syllable does he whisper of what would have been still more conclusive proof of their terrible fatuity, not a syllable does he whisper of their sup- pressing, 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 testimony of Justin.

2. Your next witness is Ireneeus 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 corrupt additions to the prophecy of Daniel.t

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 accords with the judgment of the writer, but is received with deference and reverential submission as an authoritative statement of di- vine truth : as Irenaeus drops no hint of any uncommon or extra- ordinary regard for the documents in question, beyond what he felt for other works, and works confessedly of human composi- tion, 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 supernaturally inspired — that they constitute a part of the Rule of Faith — an integral portion of the written revelation which God has given of his wiin What language does he apply to them, from which it can be gathered that he looked upon them as posessed of equal author-

* Vide Conference with Trypho, § 72, 73, for a specimen of these charges of fraudulent deahng with the Scriptures.

t Wisdom vi. 20 is quoted Contra Haeres. Lib. iv. cap. 33. Baruch iv. 36, 37, is quoted, Lib. v. cap. 35. Baruch v. entire is quoted, Lib. v, cap. 36. The story of Susannah is quoted, Lib. iv. cap. 26. Bell and the Dragon, Libj iv. cap. 5.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 251

ity and entitled to equal veneration with the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms ? If the mere fact that Irenaeus has quoted them, is sufficient to canonize Wisdom, Baruch, and the additions to Daniel, Rome must 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 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 ap- peals to the Apocrypha.* In the twenty-eighth chapter of the fifth book of the same great woik, a sentence is introduced from Ignatius's epistle to the Romans, t and in the fourth chapter of the fourth book, a nameless author is commended, | who is prob- ably the same that Eusebius denominates an apostolical Presby- ter. But what is most striking and remarkable of all, in the twentieth 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 con- clude that the argument from Irenaeus, proves too much, and therefore, upon logical principles, is absolutely worthless?

* Iv«£ KoXtii; \ovGTivoi ev ro ttjOoj ^AapKicJva (rvvrayijnri ^tjc-jj/* on ovtm tco Ki<pi(x) ov6' av ETTCiaOeiev, a^^Xfiv deov KaTayye^^ovTi irapa top 6r]jiiovpyov . . . We cannot

complete the passage from Justin, since his own work lias suffered more terribly from the ravages of time than even that of Irenaeus. The Latin is as follows : Et bene Justinus in eo libro qui est ad Marcionem ait : Quoniam ipsi quoque Domino non crcdidissem, alterurn Deum annuntianti, pia3tcr fahricatorem et factorem et nutritorem nostrum. Beautifully says Justin in his Treatise against Marcion, " I would not believe even the Lord Himself announcing another God beside our Maker, Architect and Preserver."

t Qi eiTiE Tii TMV riixcTipwi'^ eta Trjv Trpoj Oeov jiaprvniav KaraKpiBcii Trpos 6r)pia' on airoi cifti Oeov, kui Jj' oSiVTaiv CrfoiMV a'Xrid ijiai^ wa naOapos npros evpedu. As said one of ours, condenmed to the wild beasts on account of his testimony for God, *• I am the bread of God, and am ground by the teeth of wild beasts that I may be found pure bread."

I Et bene qui dixit ipsum immensum Patrein in Filio mensuratum ; mensura enim Patris, Filius, quoniam et cajjit cum. Well has one observed, that the Inmiense Father is measured in the t:?on — the Son is the measure of the Father, since he contains him.

§ Ko,\a)j ovi' ttKct' r] ypnf}] rj }iCyoicri' Trpurov Trai'Tuv rrtar€vc!)i',on en eonv o Otoi, 0 ra -rai'Ta KTicui Kat Karannaaq Kut rrotrirrai ck tov jirt ovroi ck; to £iyai ra iravra.

252 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

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 consequently, the name of the prophet must have been used in reference to the book. It was the title of the work in the Alexandrine versions which were then in use. Those, therefore, who appealed to it, under that title, no more expressed the belief that Jeremiah composed it, than those who refer to the preaching of Peter, imply the con- viction that Peter was its author. Huetius informs us that in the ancient list of the books of the Bible, which served as "ft guide to the copyists in their labor of transcription, the name of Baruch was not introduced, but that his work was embraced under the title of Jeremiah* The stories of Susannah, and of Bel and the Dragon, in the same way, were joined to the prophecy of Daniel, and were consequently quoted under the general name of the book. As we cannot for a moment suppose that Irenaeus was so stupid as really to believe that Jeremiah was the author of a work which in its very first sentence professed to be written by another man, it is indisputably clear that the name of the prophet is no otherwise employed than as the distinctive designation of the book, and consequently the use of it determines nothing in refer- ence to the question whether or not Baruch was regarded as an inspired production. Jeremiah and Daniel, in the quotations of Irenaeus, being used only in a titular sense, the quotations them- selves afford not a particle of proof touching the point which you introduced them to establish.

3. You next entertain us with aperies of passages from Clem- ent of Alexandria; and the number might have been greatly in- creased— in which, because he cites Ecclesiasticus and Tobias under the title of Scripture ; appeals to Wisdom as the work of Solomon, and distinguishes it, moreover, by the epithet Divine; quotes Baruch under the name of Jeremiah, and honors it, in ad-

* Librarii volumina sacra enscribentes, in eorum indice Baruchi nomen noii reperient qui sab Jeremise titulo continebatur, Demonstratio de Prophet. Baruch,

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTBD. 253

dition, as Divine scripture, you would have us infer that he re- crarded these works as an integral portion of the canon of Faith. The number and variety of the quotations occurring in Clement from the apocryphal documents should be no matter of surprise, when we call to mind the peculiar esteem in which they were held by the Jews in the city of his residence and labors, sur- rounded as he was by those who revered them as monuments of their national history — the history of a people whom God had distinguished as his chosen inheritance, and who had prepared the way for that glorious dispensation in which Clement rejoiced — it was not to be presumed that he would be entirely exempt from the general sentiment, especially when he found that some of these books, in the midst of many defects, were largely impreg- nated with the spirit of devotion. He would naturally be led to treat them with the same partiality which the Jews entertained for them. As to them had been committed the oracles of God, and the canon of inspiration had been received at their hands, his feeling in regard to other books preserved among this same extraordinary people, xyould obviously take its complexion from them. He would consequently be led — not to regard the apoc- rypha as inspired, for the Jews never did it — but to treat them as religious and devout compositions, to study them for the pur- pose of personal improvement, to read them in the same way in which Baxter and Owen and Howe are perused in the mod- ern church, and to adorn his writings with contributions levied from their stores, as Protestant Divines appeal to the works of standard though uninspired authors. The ambiguous titles of commendation and respect which Clement applies to them, it has already been demonstrated, do not involve the belief of in- spiration— epithets equally distinctive and laudatory he does not scruple to bestow upon divers other books* which make no pre- tensions to a place in the canon — some of which indeed were genuine — others grossly spurious — others still absolutely heathen- ish— books, which, though Clement has quoted and commended, he distinctly intimates were possessed of no authority as an in- spired rule of faith.

* Euschius, 11. Vi. Lib. vi. c. 13.

254 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

If, now, it can be shown that the principle upon which you have made this father endorse the inspiration of Wisdom and Tobias, Ecclesiasticus and Baruch, will also canonize Barnabas and Hermas, Clement of Rome, and, if not the Gospels according to the Hebrews and Egyptians, yet certainly the preaching of Peter, the fourth book of Esdras, and even the pretended verses of the Sibyl, every candid mind must acknowledge that your argument is worthless, and that the same titles which are com- monly employed, in introducing quotations from the canonical books, may also be applied to other works which are confessedly destitute of any claim to a supernatural origin.

1, Barnabas is repeatedly cited* in the booksof the Stromata, and in three distinct instances receives the very appellation of authority which Clement usually bestows upon Paul. lie is not only called the Apostle Barnabas, but, in one remarkable passage, seems to be treated, like the oath of confirmation, as an end of strife, t '' For this," says Clement, " I need not use many words, but only to allege the testimony of the apostolic Barnabas, who was one of the seventy and fellow-laborer of Paul." Now, if there ever was an officer in the Christian Church entitled to command the faith and to bind the consciences of men, that officer was the Apostle. Paul usually commences his Epistles with a distinct assertion of his Apostolic office, and the church itself is erected " on the foundation of the prophets and apostles^ Jesus Christ Himself being the chief-corner stone." To the apostles the promise was originally made that the Holy Spirit should be imparted as a Divine Teacher, who should guide them into all truth, and brinor to their remembrance the instruc- tions of the Son. To call a man an apostle, therefore, would

* Stromat. Lib. ii. cap. 6 (sub fine), Ei»forwf ow b AkoctoXos ^apvaf^as (prjuiv — ^"Rightly, therefore, says the Apostle Barnabas." This is precisely the form in which Clement sometimes quotes the inspired writers. For example, a pas- sage from the Psalms is thus introduced, Strom. Lib. ii. c. 15: E^ikotus ow (prjaiv 0 Jlpocprirrii — " Rightly, therefore, says the Prophet." For other quotations from Barnabas, see Strom, ii. 18, v. 10, ii. 15.

t StrOJ7l. ii. 20 : Ow [loi 6£i ■n'KEiovhiv Xoyajy. TrapaBcjiCvo) fiapTW tov arroaTo'XiKnv

Bapva/Sav, &c. It is remarkable that in this passage, as the context will show, Barnabas seems to be quoted to prove a doctrine.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 255

seem to be equivalent to pronouncing him inspired. It was an office furnished with the gift of supernatural wisdom and infalli- ble knowledge; and yet Clement does not scruple to distinguish " the fellow-laborer of Paul" with this high title of authority. Did Clement believe that Barnabas was actually inspired? Let a single fact answer the question. He contradicts * the exposi- tion which Barnabas had given of the Mosaic prohibition — " thou shalt not eat of the hyena nor the hare," — which, says Cotele- rius, " 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 in- spiration than to affirm that it was written by an apostle. 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 designa- tion of the highest rank should be attributed to those who posses- sed none of the extraordinary endowments that give a right to the title. As then uninspired men among the ancient writers were unquestionably denominated apostles, it is not incredible that uninspired books should have been in like mannner denominated scripture.

'* " There is no inconsiderable proof to be made out of the works of Clemens Ale^ndrinus himself, that lie did not look upon this Epistle (Barnabas's) as having any manner of authority, but on the contrary took the liberty to contra- dict and oppose it. One instance will be sufficient. In Faedag. hih.ii. c. 10, p. 188, he cites the explication of Barnabas 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 evident 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, ov ftci> m tt^Sc e^riyn<yti twv avjilioXiKMi etprj^tevuiv cvyKoTtOenai, yet he could not agree with the symbolical explication some gave of the place, viz., that the hyena changes its sex yearly, and is sometimes male, and sometimes female, as Barnabas. After which he largely disputes the fact." Jones on Can. Part iii. c. 40.

256 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

2. Clement of Rome is also quoted* in the Stromata, and quoted as an apostle. Upon your principle of reasoning, accord- ingly, 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 Hermas? It was evidently a favorite with Clement, and is sometimes describ- ed in language which, if you had found it in connection with Wisdom, and Tobias, Ecclesiasticus and Baruch, you would per- haps have paraded as triumphant proof of their Divine authority. Let me call your attention to two remarkable passages. In the twenty-ninth chapter of the first book of Stromata, a quotation is introduced from the Shepherd in these words :t ^' Divineli/, therefore, says the power which speaks to Hermas hy revelation." Again, at the close of the first chapter of the second book,J an- other quotation is introduced in terms almost as strong : " The power that appeared in vision to Hermas, says." Now here is a power which speaks divinely, reveals things in visions, and per- forms the offices in regard to Hermas which are described in the same words with the supernatural communications of the Holy Ghost to the prophets. Did Clement mean to assert that the Pastor of Hermas was an inspired production 1 Most unquestion- ably not ;§ and yet he has employed no language in reference to any of the books of the Apocrypha, which is more explicit, more pointed, or more decided than the commendations lavished on the Shepherd. You say that Wisdom must be inspired, because Cle- ment calls it divine Wisdom, but Hermas, also, according to him, speaks divinely. Nay the argument for Hermas is far more powerful. He not ^only speaks divinely, he speaks by revelation,

otro?n. Lib. i. c. 7 : A.vriKa 6 K.\r]fievs ev jx] npos K.optvdiovs enicTro\ri, Kara Xe^lv, (prjai — "As Clement in his Epistle to the Corinthians says." Again, otrom. iv. C. 17 : Nat jitjv ev tj] npos K.opivdiovs ETna-ToXri b AttootoAoj K.'Xtj^uvi — " the apostle Clement in the Epistle to the Corinthians."

t Qeicj; TOivvv rj Swafjiis ri tlo Epfia Kara airoKaXv^iv XaXovcra.

t $J7o-( yap £v TO) opauuTi rw Ep/^a r] Jrra^ftf, rj (paveiaa.

§ That the Shepherd of Hermas never was received as canonical, may be gathered from the following testimonies: Euseb. H. E. Lib. iii. c. 3, 25 ; Ter- tull. do Oratione c. 12 ; Origen Horn. viii. in Numeros, x. in Jos., i. in Psalm. 37 ; Athauasius de Decret. Nicaenae Synod, in Epistola Pasch.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 257

he declares things which have been opened in visions, and re- ceives communications from the lips of an angel, like Daniel in his prophecy and John in the Apocalypse.

4. The Preaching of Peter, a document which Clement must have known to be apocryphal, he not only cites, but cites dis- tinctly under the name of the Apostle. His most usual form of quotation is, *' Peter says in the Preachings," or simply, " Peter says," when there had been a previous mention of the book.* Now upon the same principles of criticism from which you have inferred that Clement received Wisdom as the work of Solomon, it must also be maintained that he regarded the Preaching as a genuine production of the Apostle. The argument is just as strong in the one case as it is in the other. Because a passage is introduced from Wisdom, and treated without scruple as a say- ing of Solomon, you boldly conclude that Solomon was declared to be the author of the book, but precisely the same is done in reference to Peter and the apocryphal work which bears the title of his Preaching. I presume, however, that you will not think of contending that the holy Father looked upon the Preaching as a part of the canon, which he certainly must have done if he be- lieved it to be composed by one of the original Apostles. His meaning, you would probably inform us, is evidently nothino- more than this, "Peter is represented as saying" in a book which is known by the title of his Preaching. On the same ground it may be said, that in similar quotations from Wisdom all that the father intended to assert was, that Solomon is represented to have said in a book which is distinguished by his name. In other words, in both instances the documents are quoted accord- ing to their titles.

5. H the principle be true which you have assumed as the basis of your argument throughout this discussion — if the princi- j)le be true that whatever books are quoted by the Fathers in the' same way with the canonical Scriptures, must themselves be in- spired, then the Fourth Book of Esdras, which Rome rejects,

* JlcTpos cv rw Ki\pvyjxari \r)yei. Sliotn. vi. c. 5. Again, ill the same chap- ter, referring to the same book — avroi diaaacprirrei Tlcrpoi. Two other references are in the same chapter, besides various others in the first and second books.

I /^

258 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

and Bellarmiii declares to be disfigured with fables, the dreams of Rabbins and Talmudists, deserves to be inserted in the Sa- cred Library. In the sixteenth chapter of the third book of Strom- ata, you will tind a passage from this miserable work, standing, in your view, upon consecrated ground, (for you frequently in- sist on it as a matter of some moment, when a text from the Apoc- rypha 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 work of a prophet — " says the Prophet Esdras." I shall present the reader with a free translation of the whole passage :*

" '" Cursed be the day wherein I was born, let it not be blessed,' says Jeremiah. He does not mean absolutely to say that his gen- eration should be cursed, but to express his affliction on account of the sins and disobedience of the people. He adds, therefore : * Wherefore was I born to see labors and sorrows, my days have been in perpetual reproach.' In fact, all faithful preachers of the truth, on account of the disobedience of tiieir hearers, have been exposed to persecution and to peril. ' Why was nut my mother's icomh my sepulchre, that I miglit not have seen the travail of Jacob and the toil of the stock of Israel?' says the prophet Esdras." The text may be found in the fourth book of Esdras, chapter v. o5.

Now, sir, is the fourth book of Esdras inspired ? Listen to Cardinal Bellarmin : " The third and fourth books of EscJras 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 (chap, vi.) certain

* The original is as follows : KziKaTapaTos Se rj rijjepa, £v J/ ETE^drjv. xai firj (CTbi tTTCVKTea, 0 lepcjtiai cpqcriv. ov rrjv ytvctJiv ottAwj CTriKarapa-up Xcycjj', aXX' airoSvar- TTCTOiv ern roig ajjiaprrijiacn rov Xaov Kai tt] aiztiQcia' eiTi(J)£p£i yovi/' Sta ri yap eycvi'rjBijVf rov l3\cTTEiv KOTTOvs KUi TTovovi Ktti ^lETC^Eaav £v uia^vt'T] «( TiftEpai fxov' avTiKa navTES ov KrjpvacTovTES Tr]v a\r\OEiav^ Sia rrjv aTTEidEiav tcjv aKOVovrwv sSioiKOvro te Kai ekivSevvov, Aia Ti yap ovk syEVETO t] jArjrpa Tr)S ^T]Tpos ^ov Ta(p3Sj iva fir] iSo) tov ixo^dov rov laKU)0, Kai TOV KOTTOv TOV yEvov? \<Tpar)\' E(rjf)aj o irpDcpnmi Xfyet. Stro7n. iii. C. 16.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 259

fabulous thinors concerniiw the fish Henoch and Leviathan, which were too larore for the seas to hold. These stories are the dreams of Rabbins and Talmudists."* And yet a work which is thus summarily condemned by one of the brightest ornaments of your church, is quoted by a Christian Father, in connection with Jeremiah and Job, as the production of a Prophet ! What a commentary upon your principles of criticism !

6. Let me now call your attention to the manner in which Clement has treated the verses of the Sibyl. I shall not stop to inquire whether the collection which Justin, Theophilus and himself commended, were the genuine verses of the ancient Sibyl, or an impudent forgery of a later date. It is enough for my purpose to observe that the book extant in the second century under the well-known name of the Heathen Prophetess, is not only quoted by Clement, but, what is much more remarkable, distinguished as Prophetic and Divine Scripture. t What

* Apocrypbi suiit liber tertius ct quartus Esdrae. Quartus autem Esdrac

eitatur quidem ab Ainbrosio tamen sine dubio non est canonicus, cum a

nullo concilio referatur in canonem, et non inveniatur neque Hebraice neque Graece, ac demum contineat (cap. 6) quaedam fabulosa de pisce Henoch et Levia- ihan quos niaria capere non poterant, quae Rabbinoruni, Talmudistarum somnia sunf. Bellarm. de Verb. Dei. i. 20.

t As a specimen of his treatment of the Sybilline verses, take the following passage, Cohort ad Gentes, c. 8 :

Qpa TOivvv, TOiv aWwv rjniv rt] ra^ei ■!rpo6tT}vvaixevwv em rag irpo<})£TiKai icvat ypa- (jiag. j/at yap oi )(priTii.oiy rag £ts t>]v Qfiacficiav ejiirj a(popijag cvapytuTara TzporeivovTCg, OtucXiovai rr]v aXrjOeiav' )(Pa^at Sc ai Ociai, kui TroXireiat c-fo^fioarcj, avvTOfioi auirrjpiag oSof yx'jd'at KOf<iJio)Ttirigj Kai Trig Kr]rog KuWKpwviag Km otw/zuAjuj, kui KoXaKtiag VTrap- ^ovaatf avicTOiaiv aX'^ojitvQV vno KUKiag tov avQpwTtov^ vrreptSovaai rov oXiaOov rov Ppo- TiKOv, jua Kai -(7 avTt) 0wj'/j ttoXXo Ocparrevovjai, airoTpeTTovaai ^ev »7//af reg cTTi^iiutov OTzaTTig, npoTpCTTOvcjai Se Cjupavug eig irpovrrrov aoiTrjOLiav- avriKa yovv t] Trpo(pr)Teg rjfitu nnraeo) rrpwrr} Ei/^uXXa, to aafia to atorripiov. Then follows an extract from the

book. This remarkable passage may be thus rendered : " Other things having been despatched in their order, it is time to proceed to the Prophetic Scriptures (i. e. the Sybilline verses). For, indeed, these oracular responses, setting most clearly before us the means and method of Divine Worship, lie at the foundation of truth. These Divine Scriptures and wise institutions are compendious ways of salvation. Free from meretricious ornament, the intrinsic embellishment of speech, from flippancy and adulation, they elevate the man who is depressed by evil — having taught to despise the casualties of life, and with the same voice they heal many disorders, turn us away from dangerous delusion, and direct our

260 ROMANIST ARGiTmENTS FOR THE

will you say to this astounding fact ? Are you prepared to as- sert that he esteemed the Sibyl of equal authority with Isaiah, Jeremiah and David, or regarded her verses as entitled to equal veneration with the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms t And yet, if the names Scripture, Divine Scripture, and such like ex- pressions, are sufficient to prove inspiration — and upon these you have chiefly relied in urging the testimony of Clement, in behalf of the Apocrypha — the books of the Sibyl have the same claims to a place in the canon as Wisdom, Tobias and Baruch. The '* two passages,"* upon which you insist with peculiar emphasis, will

attention to that salvation which is before our eyes. Let then the Sibyl -Prophet- ess first sing to us the song of salvation." Where can any thing be produced so strong in favor of the Apocrypha 1

* " Let me now call your attention to two passages from the first and the fourth books of his Stromaton, from which we may learn something of the con- tents of the Scripture, as it was in the hands of this writer :

" During this (the Babylonian) captivity, lived Esther and Mordecai, whose book is had, as also that of the Maccabees. During the same captivity, Misael, Ananias, and Agarias, unwilling to adore the statue, were cast into the furnace of fire and were saved by an angel that appeared to them. Then, too, David having been cast into a pit of lions, because of Dagon, and nourished by Aba- cum through the Providence of God, was saved after seven days. In this time, too, happened the sign of Jonah. And Tobias, because of the angel Raphael, takes Sara to wife, whose first seven husbands Satan had slain ; and after his marriage his father Tobit recovers his sight. Then Zorobabel, having conquered his rivals in v»'isdom, obtained from Darius the rebuilding of Jei-usalem."

The next passage is : " How great is the perfection of Moses, who preferred to die with his people rather than to remain alone in life. But Judith, too, made perfect among women, when the city was besieged, having besought the elders, went into the camp of the strangers, despising every danger for sake of her country, delivering herself to her enemies with fa i'th in God. And soon she received the reward of that faith when she, a woman, acted manfully against the enemy and obtained the head of Holophernes. And Esther, also, was per- fect in faith, freeing Israel from tyrannical power and the cruelty of a satrap. She, a single woman, resisted the innumerable armed forces, annulling through faith the tyrant's decree. Him she rendered meek and crushed Aman ; and by her perfect prayer to God, preserved Israel unhurt. I mention not Susannah, and the sister of Moses ; how this one led the hosts with the Prophet the chief of all the women among the Hebrews, renowned for wisdom ; and the other being led forth even to death for her high purity, when she was condemned by her incontinent lovers, remained an unshaken martyr of chastity."

ArOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND KEFUTKD. 2(U

be foand, when carefully examined, to aQbrd no sort of counte- nance to your cause. The first is taken from the twenty-first chapter of the first book of Stromata, and occurs in the midst of an argument to prove what was notoriously a favorite dogma with the Fathers, that heathen literature was derived from the Jews. Clement shows that Moses was earlier than the Greek philosophers, theogonists and poets, and that, consequently, whatever was valuable in Gentile learning, migiit be historically traced to the pure fountains of Hebrew theology. He, accord- ingly, after having given a synoptical statement of Greek chro- nologies, presents us with a compendious recital of Jewish his- tory. 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 re- markable facts that occurred during the period of the Exile. In this connection your first passage is introduced, Now all that Clement's argument required was that the statements which he gathered from the Apocrypha should be historically true. It was not important that they should be coiifirmed by Di- vine inspiration, or delivered only by writers who were guided by the Spirit of God. It was enough that he believed them to he 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 Maccabees, the narrative of Tobit, and the story of Susannah, be received as a faithful exhibition of the facts which they record, without be- ing clothed with supernatural authority 1 Clement simply in- forms 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 indicates that either book was inspired ? We know, in fact, that Esther was, but if we had not other in- formation, we should never be able to collect it from this pas- sage. Again, he says, "Tobias, because of the angel Raphael, takes Sarah 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 narrative

262 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

without the slightest expression of opinion as to the source from which it originated. The book of Tobit was a part of the general body of Jewish literature, and as such is introduced by the father. But what puts it beyond all doubt that Clement did not con- fine himself, in this passage, 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 hook of Esdras, (which Rome declares to be apocryphal,) and mentions a fact which is recorded in the fourteenth chapter of that fabulous production. 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* — '* Esdras afterwards returned to his country and by him we achieved the redemption of the people and the recension and re- neical oi i\\e inspired oracles."

Your second passage, which may be found in the nineteenth chapter of the fourth book of the Stromata, is little more than a quotation from Clement of Rome's Epistle to the Corinthians; and as you have already insisted upon it as found in the apos- tolic father, I need not here repeat the answer which has already been given. That Susannah — a fact to which you attach no small degree of importance — should be named in con- nection with Moses, Miriam, and Esther, is no more surprising than that Socrates should have been lauded as a martyr and honored as a prophet of the Logos of God. t

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. Without insisting on the point which, I think, is susceptible of an easy demonstration, that some of the pas- sages in which you represent him as quoting the Apocrypha, are, in fact, citations from the canonical books, it is sufficient to observe that he drops not a single expression from which it

Ka£ ^era hjc6pa tij rriv Trarpcjav yrjv ava^evyvvai, 6i ov yiverai t) a-oXvTpioais £ci \ao\} Kai 0 roiv OcoTrvewTCJv avayvoipitTnoi Kai avaKUivianos 'Xoytojp. I. 16. Ireiiseus

also endorsed the same story. Contra Hcsres, Lib. iii. c. 21. Cf. Euseb. H. E. V. 8.

t Strom, i. Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 5.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 263

can be necessarily inferred tliat he believed these works, however freely he might use them, to be entitled to equal veneration and respect with the undisputed canon of the Jews. If he appeals to Wisdom and Baruch under the names respectively of Solomon and Jeremiah, it is only in consequence of the title of the books. There is, in fact, as much evidence that he deferred to the fourth book of Esdras as canonical authority, as you have been able to adduce in favor of the documents which Rome has appended to the word of God. In the Treatise De Cultu Femi- narum, there occurs in the third chapter an evident allusion to the apocryphal story, which the fathers 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 instrumentum " is the language of Tertullian, '* omne instrumentum Judaica3 Literature; per Esdram constant restauratum." Every instrument of Jewish Literature was restored hy H&dras.

The expressions, octt// Domini alii, which may be found near the beginning of the Tract De Prescriptione Ilaereticorum, seem to have been suggested by a corresponding phrase in the eighth chapter of the fourth book of Esdras, Domine cujus oculi elevati (v. 20). Very nearly an exact quotation from this same fabu- lous production, is introduced again in the sixteenth section of the fourth book of the Work against INIarcion, 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 produced, as you have not, cita- tions from his writings, in which this distinguished father applies to the Apocrypha the usual appellations of the canonical books, your conclusion could not have followed from your premises. On two separate occasions, Tertullian denominates the Pastor of Ilermas scripture, and yet, in one of the instances, in the very connection in which he refers to it under this honorable title, he distinctly testifies that it possessed no Divine authority, but was universally rejected as apocryphal and spurious.* So, again, * The second passage from Tertullian I shall insert entire. Sed cederem tibi,

264 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

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 slighted 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 representations of the twenty- four books which compose the Old Testament. The number twenty-four being doubtless made, as we learn 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 signal, j|. Esse satis certa viginti quatuor ista Quae Domini cecinere vias et tempora pacii-."

Carm. Advers. Marc. lib. iv.

It may be gathered as an important inference from the exam- ination which has just been instituted into the leading documents

si Scriptura Pastoris, quae sola moechos amat, divino instrumento meruisset in- cidi, si non ab omni concilio ecclessiarum vestrarum inter apocrypha et faiso judicaretur.— De Pudicit. c. 10. Tertullian wrote thiswhen he was a Montan- ist. That, however, is of no importance, since the critical purpose for which it is adduced is to show that he may call a book scripture and yet believe it to be apocryphal. The passage may be thus turned into English :

" But I would yield the point to you, if the scripture of the Shepherd, which is favorable to adulterers, deserved to be placed in the Divine Testament ; if it were not reckoned apocryphal and spurious by every assembly even of your own churches."

* Quod si Pauli perperam Scriptura legunt, exemplum Theclae ad licentiam mulierum docendi tingendique defendunt, sciant in Asia Presbyterum, qui earn Scripturam constnxxit, quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans, convictum atque con- fessurn, id se amore Pauli fecisse, loco discessisse. But if any read the writ- ings falsely attributed to Paul, and defend the right of women to preach and baptize by the example of Thecla, let them know that the Asiatic Presbyter who forged that scripture, adorning his performance with the title of Paul, having been convicted of the thing, and having confessed that he did it out of love to Paul, left his place."

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND KEFUTKD. i2(i5

of the second century — that all writings, professedly reliirious, whether human or supernatural in their origin, were referred by the fathers to a common class, and embraced under a common appellation. This was done in order that a broad line might be drawn between the monuments of pagan literature and the pro- ductions of those who 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, uninspired though they might be, were not to be included in the same category with the vain discussions and false philo- sophy of the children of darkness. They belonged to a different department of thought — a department possessing much in com- mon with those Divine books which the Spirit had given as a rule of faith. Whatever was written with a pious attention 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 inspiration, 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 advan- tage. Divine Scripture and such like expressions, 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 com- mon 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 discrimi- nated from heathen letters ; and as the leading difference be- tween them was, that one was Divine in its tendencies and ob- jects, while the other was sensual, earthly, and devilish, no terms could possibly have been selected more appropriate, than those which were actually applied by the early fathers tollermas, Bar

266 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

nabas, and Clement, as well as to Wisdom, Tobit, and Baruch. Let the reader then bear in mind that, according to the usage of the primitive church, Divine Scripture was a generic term, in- cluding in its meaning whatever might be profitably read — what- ever was fitted to foster devotion, and to inspire diligence in the Christian life, and the language of the fathers will present no dif- ficulty.

Letter XVII

Testimony of the writers of the third century considered — Cyprian, Hippolytus, Apostolical

Constitutions.

The same erroneous principles of criticism, which betrayed . at once the weakness of the cause and the ignorance of the advocate, in your appeal to the writings 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. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, with whom you commence your account of this period, and to whom you seem willing to defer with abso- lute submission, will 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, TertuUian.* It deserves to be remarked, though I shall not insist upon the fact in the argument, that several of the passages which you have culled from the writings of this distinguished father, are taken from a-treatise upon which, in the judgment of scholars, no certain reliance can be placed. The Testimonies against the Jews to Q,uirinus, even by those who allow it to be genuine, is yet acknowledged to be so largely corrupted, that it is impossible to distinguish what is truly Cyprian's from what has been subsequently added by others.t A work of this sort

* Nunquam Cyprianum absque Tertulliani lectione unam diem praeterisse, ac sibi crebre dicere solitum ; Da inagistruni TertuUianum significans. — Vita perJac. Pamilium.

* Stephen Baluze had paid great attention to the study of Cyprian, and

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 267

should evidently " be quoted," as Lardner 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 favorite 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 document, and, in some instances, quoted it as Divine Scripture. But that this does not amount to an admission of its canonical 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 acknowledges it to be Divine Scripture, he virtually asserts that it was not inspired. He draws a broad

possessed twenty-one manuscripts of this particular treatise. His opinion, there- fore is entitled to great weight. " If," says he, " tiiere are any passages in the writings of Cyprian, of which it cannot be certainly said that they belong to him, that can be chiefly asserted of the books of Testimonies to Quirinus. Several manuscripts have more than the common editions, some less. Since, there- fore, it is impossible to distinguish what is truly Cyprian's from what has been subsequently added by his admirers, we have retained what we found in an- cient manuscript copies. Only the two first books exist in the Spirensian edi- tion, the old Venetian, and in that which Rembold edited. Erasmus published the third from a written code.x of the monastery of Gamblour. I have twenty- one ancient copies of these books, of which, however, only five have the two first books."

Si qua sunt loca in operibus sancti Cypriani, de quibus pronuntiari non pos- eit ea certe illius esse, id vero«in primis asseri potest de libris Testimoniorum ad Quirinum. Plures enim codices plus habent quam vulgatae editionis, alii minus. Itaque, quoniam impossibileest discernere ea quae vere Cypriani sunt ab iis quae post iUum a studiosis addita sunt, nos retinulmus ea quae reperta nobis sunt in antiquis e.xemplaribusmanuscriptis. Porro duo tantum priores libri extant in editione Spirensi,in veteri Veneta, et in ea quam Remboldus procuravit. Eras- mus tertiam emisit ex codice scripto monasterii Gemblocensis. Habui autem unum et viginti exemplaria Vetera horum librorum, quorum tamen quinque ha- bent tantum libros duos priores. — Baluz. Not. ad Crjprian. p. 596, as quoted in Lardner, vol. iii. pp. 17, 18. (marg.)

'2&Si ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

distinction between it and the unerring testimony of revealed truth : and althoucrh he was willinor to accommodate its senti- ments, breath 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 Opere et Eleemosynis, having cited and briefly expounded the passage, "prayer is good with fasting and alms" (Tob. xii. 8), he pro- ceeds :* " The angel Raphael reveals, and manifests, and confirms the truth that our petitions are rendered effectual by alms — that our lives are redeemed from peril by alms — and that by alms our souls are delivered from death. Nor do we allegre these things, dearest brethren, so as not to prove what the angel Ga- briel has said by the testimony of truth. In the Acts 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 then appeals to the history of Tabitha, and to divers passages in the canonical Scriptures, as the proo/"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 con- science 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 sentiment which he had quoted, by what he denominated the testimony of trtith. This phrase, if we may judge from the connection, evidently means the testimony of Him who cannot lie ; who, embracing the past, the present, and the future in a single glance of unerring intuition, is emphatically the Father of lights. His law, accord- ing to the Psalmist, is the fountain of truth, and His testimony must be regarded as the seal of truth.* When Cyprian, there- fore, applies this expression, as he unquestionably does in the

* Revelat angelus et manifestat, et firmat eleemosynis vitam de periculis redemi : eleemosynis a morte animos liberari. Nee sic, fratres charissimi, ista proferrimus, ut non quod Raphael angelus dixit veritatis testimonio comprobe- mus. In Actibus Apostoloium facti tides posita est, et quod eleemosynis non tantum a secunda, sed a priora morte animae liberentur, gestae et impletae rei probalione compertum est. — Dicei Cypriani, dc Opere et Eleemosynis.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 269

present instance, to the plain declarations of the Acts, the Gos- pels, Genesis, and Proverbs, he can mean nothing less than that 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 Scriptures? We have, conse- quently, his own statements against your inference. You main- tained 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 confirmed 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 Wisdom 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 speaks of them absolutely and without qualification 'as the testimony of God, but whenever he alludes to them as the work of the Sprit, 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 supernaturally inspired. He introduces, 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, sa\'ing" — and again,t ''Thus also the Holy Spirit teaches us." So too Ecclesiasticus is quoted in these words 4 ** Solo- mon also, guided by the Holy Ghost, testifies and teaches."

It is evident from these passages — and they are the strongest

* Per Salomonem spiritus sanctus ostendit et piccarit, dicens. — De Exhort. Mars. c. 12.

t Sed et per Salomonem docet spiritus sanctus. — De MortalHate

t Sed et Salomon in ppiritu sancte constitutus testaturet docet. — Epist C^4.

270 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

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 Solomon, then he unquestion- ably received them as inspired. Now you have confidently as- serted 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 them to have been writ- ten by him? On this point, which is vital to your argument, you have left us completely in the dark. If it can be shown, how- ever, that he did not believe that Solomon was their author, then he furnishes no testimony whatever 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 zy Solomon wrote them ; but where does he say that Solomon wrote them? Unless he has said so, your conclusion is drawn from no premi- ses which he has supplied. Now I maintain that there is satis- factory evidence that neither Cyprian nor any other inltelligent father really believed that Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus 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 were imitations of his style. In the twentieth chapter of the seventeenth book of the Treatise de Civitate Dei, after having mentioned the three books, Proverbs, Ecclesiasticus and Canticles, which were universally acknowledged to have been written by Solomon, he adds :* " Two

* Proplietasse etiam ipse reperitur in suis libris, qui tres recepti sunt in auc- toritatem canonicam, Proverba, Ecclesiastes, et Canticum Canticorum. Alii vero duo, quorum unus Sapientia, alter Ecclesiasticus dicitur, propter eloquii nonnuUum similitudinem, ut Salomonis dicantur ; obtinuit consuetudo: non

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 271

other books, one of which is called Wisdom, the other Ecclesias- ticus, have also from custom, on account 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 Sapientia :* "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 in- deed appear who was the author of the book of Wisdom, but that the other, which we call Ecclesiasticus, was wTitten 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, ac- cording to the testimony of Augustine, that these disputed books were written by Solomon ; and, therefore, there is not a particle of evidence that he held them to be inspired. In fact, it is alto- gether 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 individu- al, but contained in its preface a satisfactory account of its oriiri- nal composition in one language and its subsequent translation into another. Here is a book which professes to have been written by one Jesus. The proof of its inspiration turns upon

autem esse ipsius, non dubitani doctiores. — S. Augustini Episcopi de Civitate Dei, liber xvii. cap. 20.

* Sed non sunt omittendi hi, quos quidem ante Salvatoris adventum con- stat esse conscriptos, sed eos non receptos a Judaeis, recipit tamen ejusdem Sal- vatoris Ecclesia. In his sunt duo quis Salomonis a pluribus apellantur, propter quamdani, sicut existimo cloquii similitudinem. Nam Salomonis non esse, nihil dubitant quique doctiores. Nee tamen ejus qui Sapientiae dicitur, quisnam sit auctor apparet. Ilium vero alterum, quem vocamus Ecclesiasticum, quod Jesus quidam scripserit, qui cognominatur Sirach, constat inter eos qui eundem librum totum legenint. — S. Ausustini Episcopi Speculum de libro Ezechielis.

27'2 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

the fact that it was not written, as it professes to be, by Jesus, but by Solomon — that is, it can only be proved to be inspired, bybeing 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 pal- pable falsehood. The ridiculous evasion of Bellarmin, that Je- sus diligently collected and reduced into a volume the maxims of Solomon, so that Ecclesiasticus might with propriety be at- tributed to each,* is refuted by the Prologue which is prefixed to the book. It is there stated that the original author," when he hud much given himself to the reading of the Law and the Prophets and other books of our (Jewish) fathers, and had gotten therein good judgment, was drawn on also himself to write some- thing pertaining to learning and wisdom." This looks very lit- tle like collecting and digestingHhe maxims of Solomon. Eccle- siasticus 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 instan- ces a very successful imitation, of the pointed and sententious style of the wise monarch of Israel.

Besides the similarity of style, which was perhaps the origin- al ground for attributing this work to Solomon, two other rea- sons may be assigned for quoting both it and Wisdom under his name, as we see that Cyprian has done. In the first place it was a rapid and convenient mode of "reference. The name of Solomon was a part of the professed title of the book of Wisdom, but as it was notorious that he was not the author of it, it would have been silly hypercritical nicety always to have resorted, in refer- ring to it, to the awkward periphrasis — the author of the book called the Wisdom of Solomon. To quote it by its title implied no belief that its title was just. Clemens Alexandrinus appealed to the fourth book of Esdras under the name of the Prophet Ezra. Baruch is frequently cited under the name of Jeremiah: and the Preaching of Peter was accommodated by Clement under the name of the Apostle.

* At Epiphanius in haeresi Anomarorum, et alii nonnuUi auctorem libri hu- jus Jesum Sirach esse voluiit. Respondeo, facile potuisse fieri, ut Jesus Sirach sententias Salomonis a se diligenter collectas in unum volumen redegerit, ita, uterque, auctor dici poterit. — Be Verho Dei, lib. i. cap. 14.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 273

As the book of Ecclesiasticus, on account of its striking anal- ogy to the compositions of Solomon, was in all probability de- signated by his name — ^just as we call a great poet a Homer, or a great conqueror another Alexander — the fathers would feel no hesitation in adopting a common and popular title, especially when the work itself contained an effectual antidote against all er- roneous impressions. " In the gospel of Luke," says Rainold,* *' Christ is called the son of Joseph, as likewise in the gospel of John. Luke, however, elsewhere explains it, saying that Christ was the son of Joseph, as it was supposed, and Philip says to Nathanael, we have found Jesus the son of Joseph of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets have written. Yet Moses in the Law adumbrated Christ by Melchisedec, without father as a man, without mother as God : and Isaiah, the prince of pro- phets says, Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son. Hence it is evident that Christ as a 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 con- ceived 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

* Apud Lucam Christus Joseph! filius dicitur, similiter et apud Johannem. Quanquam Lucas alibi id explicat, dicens Christum fuisse filium Josephi ut pu- tabatur, et Philippus ad Nathanaelem invenimus (inquit) Jesum fiUum Joseph, de quo scripsit Moses in lege adumbravit Christu per Melchisedecum sine patre ut hominem,sine matre ut Deum. Et prophetarum princeps Esaias, Ecce, (inquit) virgo concipiet et pariet filium, unde patet Christum ut hominem non habuisse patrem, adeoque poterat PhiUippus prius intellexisse. Josephum non fuisse vere patrem Jesu. Si intellexerit ergo ad commoditatem significationis sic loquutus est, sed ignoravit id Philippus, sciebat certe beata virgo eum a spiritu sancto con- ceptum esse ipsa, tamen apud Lucam, Ecce (inquit) pater tuus ego cruciati quaere- bamus te. Cum sciret non fuisse Josephum Christi patre, appellat tunc Josephum patrem, primo quia sic putabatur esse,secundo propter reverentiam, qua usus est Christus erga Josephum, tanquam patrem, eodem modo verisimile est patres, cum citarint libros Sapientiae et Ecclesiastici sub nomine Salomonis, uses esse eo nom- ine, non quod Salomonis esse putarint,sed significandi commoditatem sequutos, appellationem vulgo usitatam retinuisse. — De Libris ApocryphiSj Proelectio xix.

13

274 ROMAmST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

he was 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 the 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 intima- ted, 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 the fathers, with safety and advantage. Their authors, whoever they were, breathed the spirit of devotion, and hence their pro- ductions were applauded, as the modern church warmly com- mends Owen, Charnock, and Scott. Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, and Judith, were regarded as good elementary works of re- ligion, which might be placed with success in the hands of novices, to prepare them for the higher mysteries of the faith. Such, 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 beside 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 Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, the Doctrine of the Apostle, 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 Ecclesiasticus be satisfactory or not, one thing is absolutely certain — that their ascribing them to Solomon, in incidental references, is no proof whatever that they really believed them to be his. Bellarmin appeals to Basil as having cited Ecclesiasticus in this way, and

* Etrrt /cat erepa Pi/SXia tovtcov £^cl>9£v, ov Kavovi^ojiCva jiev, T£Tvno)jjiiva ieiraparoiv TTarepoyv avayivcocxKEadai rots apri -rrpoasp^ofispoii kui (Sov'Xojjevois KaTrj-x^EicrOai tov ttis cvaepeias Xoyov Ho<pia ^oXojjtuvroi, Kai (xo^ia ^ipa^, kui EcrBj^p, kui lovSeO^Kat To^iaSy Kai fii^a'xr) KoXovfievr] roiv AroorroXcJi/, Kai o -Koinriv. Athanasius, Epistola FestallS.^

0pp. i. p. 961, ed. Bened.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 215

yet Basil unequivocally asserts that only tlwee 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 Jewish canon.* It is unnecessary to adduce more examples. One single instance is sufficient to maim a conclusion drawn from the only circum- stance which can be tortured into any thing like evidence that Cyprian or any other Father imputed the documents in question to the pen of Solomon. It will now be remembered that the leading proposition of your argument was this — if Cyprian be- lieved that Solomon was the author of Ecclesiasticus and Wis- dom, he believed them to be inspired. It was incumbent on you to prove the antecedent, which you have not so much as attempt- ed 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 favor. The argument then stands in this way : If Cyprian believed that Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom were written by Solomon, he believ- ed them to be inspired. But he did not believe that they were written by Solomon. Here in my opinion the syllogism halts — claudicat consecutio — and Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are left precisely where they were before you appealed to the testimony of Cyprian.

The claims of Baruch and the additions to Daniel, to a place in the canon, you endeavor to vindicate by the same process of argument which we have seen to be worthless in the case of

* Ita videtis judicia cani posse negati consequutionem illius argumenti : patres hos libros a Salomone scriptos putariint ergo sunt ah eo scripti. Nunc istius enthymematis antecedens examinemus. Patres existimarunt hos libros a Salomone scriptos, ad quod confirmandum primum enthymenia pertinet , patres citarunt hos libros sub nomine Salomonis, ergo existimarunt ab eo scriptos, hie quoque claudiat consequutio, in illis eniin qui libmm Sapientiae sub Salomonis nomine cittirunt, fuit Basilius, qui tamen apertc inficiatur eum a Salomone scrip- turn. Ubi tres oranino sacros libros Salomoni adscribit, rpeii naaaq eyvumcv » EaXo/iwvros raj rrpayi^taTciai. Hieronymus etiam ex eoruni numcro est, qui eccle- siasticum sub nomine Salomonis citant. At alius est idem Hieronymus, ubi tres libros a Salomone scriptos decit Fertur (inquit) alius qui a Siracide scriptus est, Salomonis ; adhuc alius ipcvScTTiypafos, qni Sapientia Salomonis inscribitur. De Libris Apocrypltis, Pra^lectio xviii.

276 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom. Because Cyprian has quoted the one under the name of Jeremiah, and the other under the name of Daniel ; that is, because he 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 documents in question. The futility of such reasoning has already been sufficiently exposed : and, therefore, without far- ther ceremony, we may dismiss the testimony of Cyprian in behalf of these works, as having no existence but in your own mind.

4. His quotations from the Maccabees are no more remarkable than a quotation which he has made from the third book of Es- dras : and if his conviction of the historical credibility of the 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 vv'ithout truth," says he,* "is only an- tiquity of error : wherefore, having abandoned error, let us follow truth, knowing that truth says in Esdras — as it is written — * truth endureth and is always strong : it liveth and conquereth for evermore.' "

II. In what you call the testimony of Hippolytus and Dionysi us, 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 any thing can be gathered from a fact of this sort, but the existence of the works in the age of the writers, and the knowledge and probable approbation of their contents. But you were truly bold to insist on what is called the Apostolical Constitutions as evidence in your favor. It is true, that the Apocrypha are quoted in this collection, but it is not true that the citations which occur imply that there was

* Nam consuetude sine veritate, vetustas erroris est : propterea quod relicto errors sequamur veritatem, scientes quia et apud Esdram Veritas dicit, sicut scriptum est : Veritas et manet et invalescit in aetemum, et vincit et obtinet in saecula saeculorum. Epistola 74.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 277

any Divine authority in the writings 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 di- rected to be read in the churches : and not a syllable is whis- pered concerning Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 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 con- nection with the Old Testament, are the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Kings, Chronicles — the return from Babylon by Ezra — that is, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, David, Solomon, Job and the sixteen Prophets.* Here, then, is the canon of the Apostoli- cal Constitutions ; and though it is a document which is notori- ously spurious,! yet as you have chosen to appeal to its author- ity, I hope that, in this matter, you will abide by its decision.

Letter XVIII

Testimony of the Fourth Century considered. — Council of Nice. — Councils of Hippo and Carthage. — Testimony of Augustine — Ephrem the Syrian — Basil — Chrysostom — Ambrose.

You open the testimony of the fourth century with the Coun- cil of Nice. It is wholly immaterial to the argument whether I despise its decisions| or reverence its decrees, since the only ques-

* A.vayivo}iJKCTO) ra Mwfftwj Kai \r)aov tov ^avri' ra twv KpiTCJV kui tcov 0aei'X£(tSv' TU T(ov Tiapa\enrofi€V(i)v Kai Tr]i eiravoSov' irpoq rovroii ra tov Iw/? kui tov YaoXoiicovos Kai ra to)v CKKaiScKU ■rrpo(paT(ov' ava ovo 6t yci'Oftcvov avayvuxTjiaToyVj ETcpos tis tov Aa!3i6 ipaWcTU) vfivovg. " Let him (the reader) read the books of Moses, and of .Toshua the son of Nun, the books of Judges, Kings, and Chronicles, and those concerning the return from the captivity ; and beside these, the books of .Tob, Solomon, and the sixteen prophets; and two readings having been made, let another cliant the Psalms of David."

t For a clear and satisfactory dissertation upon the value of the Apostoli- cal Constitutions, see Lard ner, vol. iv. p. 194, et secj.

t " As this may be one of the Councils you so unremittingly despise." A. P. F., Letter VIL

278 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

tion 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 acquies- cence, I cannot but regret that so distinguished and venerable a body should have sanctioned the principle of religious persecu- tion, and indirectly, if not positively, endorsed the odious doc- trine, that pains, penalties, and civil disabilities were appropriate instruments for promoting uniformity of faith. The age of Con- stantine is, no doubt, a period in the history of the church upon which Romanists love to linger. Then were laid the founda- tions 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 fet- ters of iron, and to banish all that was pure and spiritual from the temple of God.

" 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 con- vened, let us confine ourselves to the matter in hand ; and en- deavor to ascertain whether the wickedness and folly, in refer- ence to the Scriptures, were perpetrated at Nice, which, upwards of twelve hundred years afterwards, formed a fit introduction to the atrocities of Trent. To discover the opinions of a council, the sim plest method is to appeal to the acts, the authentic proceedings of the body itself: but as in the creed, canons, and synodical epis- tle, 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 in- spired, you have been obliged to resort to collateral and indirect evidence, and that of the vaguest kind. The testimony upon which you have relied, is a passage of Jerome, and a few quota- tions found in the work of an obscure scribbler, Gelasius Cyzi- cenus. In replying to your arguments, I shall reverse the order in which you have marshalled your witnesses, and begin with Gelasius.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 279

This writer has given us a history of the Council of Nice, written a hundred and fifty years after the body had been dis- solved, collected from documents of which nothing is known with certainty, and consequently nothing can be pronounced with con- fidence. He pretends to have preserved the discussions and de- bates which transpired in the Synod betwixt the orthodox and the Arians ; but speeches reported under such circumstances are evidently entitled to small consideration.* Worthless, how- ever, as his history is, you have appealed to it as possessing, upon this subject, " some value." "At the time," you inform us, *' when Gelasius wrote, there were many monuments of the Coun- cil of Nice still extant, which have since perished. The senti ments of the Fathers could be easily ascertained, and it is utterly incredible that if they were unanimously opposed to the inspira- tion 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 have 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 re- jection of the whole Apocrypha from the list of inspired compo- sitions ? In the passages which you have adduced, he simply represents 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 peo- ple, upon the matter in dispute, without 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 legiti- mate 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

* The reader may form some conception of the value of this historian from the " admonitio ad Lectorum " prefixed to his work in Labbaeus and Copart, vol, ii. p. 103.

280 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

consequently no impropriety in using them, as a probable expo- sition of the national faith. In fact, they have been used in mod- ern 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 Revelation, and a decision of an inspired writer, but to witness what was the faith of the Jewish Church in the time when the authors of those Apocryphal books did flourish."*

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, however, you insist on the pro- position 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 Scripture, and cited them apparently to prove a doctrine. In the eighteenth chapter of the second book of his history, he ex- hibits 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 Eusebius, these words occur.* '' Enough has been said, as it appears to me ; and the proofs have clearly

* See AUix's Judgment of the Jewish, Church, &c., c. v. p. 53.

* \Kava eivai fxoi Sokei ra ^tj^^OevTa. /cat at aTioSei^eii Trapearricav, w ^iXoao^E^ori o vios rov Qeov eoTiv, o Kai ttjv zv 11o\oi>mvti ti \oyi<TTiKr)v (xocpiav Kriaag, Kai iravra ra KTiCTUy Kai OVK cpyaXcioy, iva Se coi <xa<pecT£pav Tt]v aXrjQr] tcov xpayfiardiv uttoSsi^iv TrapaaTri(TO)[jiev, kul ra^iov eXdwfjtcv eiri tov vofiov tov irpay^aros, Kai rug Oecjpias avTov, Ta £K rr]s ypaipr]^ Xe^wjjlcv. yLcWuiv o Trpo<pT]Tr]S Mwff/jj e^ievai tov 0ioi'y ws yeypa-Krai ev /Sj/JXm ava\i^xp£o)s Mwo-fwj, irpoaKaXeaaiiEvos Irjaovv viov Navrj, Kai Sia^EyonEvog irpof avTOv, Ecpri' Kai npoEOEaaai to jxe o 0cof tTjjo KUTaPoXrjg Koa^iov, Eivai [xe ttjs SiadriKTjs av- Tov jiEaiTriv. Kai Ev /?i/?X(:o \oywv nvaTiKwv Mwaecoj, aVTog Mwo->7j irpoEnTE nEpi tov AapiS Kai 2oXo/;wi'7-oj. GelasH 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. R39.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 281

shown, O philosopher, 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 ex- position 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 Scriptures. Moses, the prophet, when about to die, as it is written in the book of the Assumption 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, Moses 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 speech- es, which the historian Eusebius, in the name of all the bishops, is represented by Gelasius as employing under the title of Scrip- ture against the anonymous champion 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 propo- sition, and maintain that Nice canonized these books, why has Rome rejected them 1 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 pre- cisely the same evidence that it sanctioned the inspiration of these legends of Mos^ 1 But you cannot, as a consistent Ro- manist, admit that the assumption of Moses was treated as canon- ical 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 labor in proving that it quoted Baruch, Judith, 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 which Bellarniin offers for the heresy of Jerome, in rejecting all of the Apocrypha, with the exception of Judith, from the canon. * "I admit," says he, ** that Jerome

* Atlinitto igitur Ilieronymnm in ea fuisse opinione. quia nondum generale

13*

•282 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

was of this opinion, because as yet no general Council had de- j termined any thing concerning any of these books, with the ex- ception of Judith, which Jerome afterwards received." And yet, according to you, a general Council had determined something. Baruch and Wisdom were put upon the same footing with Ju- dith. Thus Priest contradicts Priest and Jesuit devours Jesuit. 2. Let us now turn to the testimony of Jerome. In his pre- face to the Book of Judith, he observes : " But because the Council of Nice is read to have counted this book in the num- ber of Sacred Scriptures, I have complied with your request or rather demand." * It will be observed here that Jerome does not state the fact upon his own authority, he was not even born when the Council of Nice was assembled ; but upon the author- ity of a nameless writer, whose book it does not appear had ever been seen by himself. " It is read," says he ; but where and by whom? To these questions the Father furnishes no manner of reply. We have then not Jerome, but an anonymous scribbler, of whom nothing is known but his obscurity, testifying to the reception on the part of Nice of the book of Judith. Com- pletely, therefore, without foundation is the bold statement of Bellarmin, that Jerome opposed the authority of Nice to the opinion of the Jewish Church, and was himself a witness that the Nicene Synod had received the book of Judith into the Canon of Scripture. t That somehody, no one knows who, had some- where, no one knows where, read or heard that this was the case,

concilium de his libris aliquid statuerat, excepto libro Judith, quem etiam Hier- onymus postea recepit. — Bellar. de Verbo Dei, lib. i. cap. 10.

* Sed quia hunc Librum synodus Nicaena in numero S. Scripturarum legi- tur computasse acquievi postulationi vestraB, iinmo cxactioni. — S. Hier. Praf. in Lihr. Judith.

t Librum Judith egregium testimonium habere a synodo Nicaena 1. Om- nium synodorum generaliura prima et celeberrima, testatur S. Hieronymus prae- fatione in Judith. Ac ne forte Kenilius dicat librum Judith sanctum esse, sed non plenae auctoritatis ad fidei dogmata confirmanda notanda sunt verba S. Hieronymi: asserit enim sanctissimus Doctor, apud Hebraeos librum Judith numerari in Sanctis libris, qui tamen non sint idonei ad dogmata fidei compro- banda: deinde huic Hebrarorum sententiae opponit Nicaenae synodi auctorita- tem : igitm- teste Hieronymo, Nicasna synodus librum Judith ita retuUt in numerum sacrorum librorum, ut eum idoneum esse consuerit ad fidei dogmata confirmanda. — Bellar. de Verbo Dei. lib. i. cap. 13.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 283

is the sum and substance of what Jerome asserts — a precious testimony truly !

1. That Jerome himself did not believe his anonymous wit- ness— that he referred to the matter simply as a rumor and not as a fact, * may be gathered from his own account of the book of Judith. In his preface to the books of Solomon he says, '* The church indeed reads the book of Judith, but does not re- ceive it among the canonical Scriptures."! Again, in the Pro- logus Galeatus — ** the book of Judith is not in the canon. "J If he believed that the Council of Nice truly represented the faith of the church, and yet believed that, according to the faith of the church, the book of Judith was not canonical, he must have believed that the nameless author to whom he alludes had either ignorantly or wilfully lied. There was no alternative. If this author told the truth, Judith was canonical, and the church re- ceived it as such ; but Judith was not canonical, says Jerome, and the church did not receive it as such : therefore, this author, could not have spoken the truth. This reasoning can be evaded, only by saying, that Nice did not represent the faith of the church, that is, that the 318 Bishops who were assembled there, did not know the books which were generally received as in- spired— a supposition too absurd to receive a moment's atten- tion.

2. It is susceptible of the clearest demonstration, that the prominent actors in the Synod of Nice, received neither Judith, nor any of the books which Protestants reject, as a part of the canon ; a fact which is wholly inexplicable, if Jerome's witness is worthy of credit. Eusebius, who, according to Gelasius, was more than once the organ of the Council, and who certainly

* Erasmus and Slapleton so understood the matter. Erasmus says: — Non affirmat Hieronymus approbatum fuisse hunc librum Judith in synodo Nicaena, sed ail, in numero estliterarum Legiturcomputasse. — Erasm. in Cetis. Prcpfat. Hie.ron. Stapleton says : — Hieronymus hoc do synodo Nicaena tantum exeama referre videtur. Synodus, inquit, Legiturcomputasse, nam alibi aperte dubitat. — Lib. ix. Princip. c. 12.

t Librum Judith legit quidem Ecclesia,sed eum inter canonicas Scripturas non recipit. — .S. Hier. Prcef. in Libr. Salom.

\ Liber Judith non est in canon.e — S. Hier. in prol. gal

384- ROMANIST ARGUxMENTS FOR THE

must have known all of importance that transpired in the body, has not only left no intimations, in any of his writings, that Ju- dith was so conspicuously honored, but uniformly treats the whole Apocrypha as disputed and uninspired compositions. In the twelfth chapter ot the sixth book of his Ecclesiastical His- tory, he speaks of the Wisdom of Solomon and of Jesus the Son of Sirach, as works which were not admitted into the canon.* In the second book of his Chronicles, t according to the ver- sion of Jerome, he distinguishes betwixt the Maccabees and the inspired records of the Jews, and places the former in the same category with the writings of Josephus and Julius Africanus ; and expressly states that they were not received among Sacred Scriptures. "From the time of Zerubbabel," he states in the eighth book of the Demonstratio Evangelica, | '' to the time of the Saviour, no Divine book was published." And Jerome informs us that he pronounced the additions to Daniel to be to- tally destitute of Divine authority .§

Athanasius, another prominent member of the Council of Nice, expressly rejects the Apocrypha from any claim to inspira- tion. He speaks of Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Tobit, the additions to Esther, and Judith, as valuable books for beginners and those who were recently converted to Christianity, but as forming no part of the Canon of Scripture. It was the peculiar prerogative of the twenty-two books which the Jews admitted and which Protestants receive, according to him, to be the fountains of sal- vation— the infallible source of religious truth. ||

* K.£^prirai S' £v avroig kui raig airo TOiv avriXtyntviov ypa^Mv fjiaprvpiats, rrii re XsyoiJEvrig SoXo^coVros (TOipias, Kai Tr)s Irjaov rov Hipa^, kui r>js irpos E/?oatot)f ema- ToX>7j, TTis re Bapva/Sa kui KXc^jeitoj kqi lovoa. Eusebii Famphili Historiae Eccles. lib. vi. 13.

t Hue usque Divinae Scripturee Hebrseorum Annales temporura continent. Ea vero quae posthaec apud eos gesta sunt, exhibeo de Libro MaccabESorum, et Josephi, et Africani scriptis. — Euseb. Cliron. 1, 2, juxta versionem S. Hieron.

X Q.V ov Kod' rijiiv Svvarop £^aKpiPa^£(Tdai'Ta yivrjTw, firjSe (pepeadat Oeiav (Sil3\ov e^ CKEivov. Kai fitxP'- "^^^ '■'" ^<>^rinpo<; 'x^povtov. Euseb. Demon. Evang. Lib. viii.

§ Et miror quosdam, &c., cum et origines et Eusebius et ApoUinarius alii- que Ecclesiastici viri et Doctores Graeciae has visiones non haberi apud Hebrseos fateantur, nee de debere respondere Porphyrio pro his qus nullam scripturse sacrse auctoritatem praebeant — ^S'. Hier. Proem. Com. in Daniel.

II Athanastius as above.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 285

Betwixt the Synod of Nice and Jerome, we have a succession of distinguished writers, Epiphanius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory, Nazianzen, and Amphilochius, together with the Council of La- odicea, all, as we shall subsequently see, concurring, not in the rejection of Judith only, but of the whole Apocrypha, from any pretensions to canonical authority. None seem to have known or ever to have heard that any such event took place at Nice as Jerome says had been somewhere read to have happened. Is it credible, that if Nice had canonized Judith, all of these writers, some of whom were members of the body, should have been pro- foundly ignorant of the fact 1 How comes it that not one of them has alluded to it, but that all have spoken as if no such event had ever taken place? I cannot better express this argument thap in the words of a distinguished papist, Lindanus, the Bish- op of Rurmonde :* '* If the Nicene Council held the book of Judith and the other books of that rank to be canonical, why did the Council of Laodicea, eighty years afterwards, omit it? And why did Nazianzen make no mention of it? St. Hierome seems to me to speak as one that doubted of it, unless a man might think

* Si enim Nicena synodus librum Judith cum aliis in canonem redegerat, cur annis 80, post eum non accensit Laodicena ? Cur Nazianzenus ejus non meminit? sed legitur computasse (ait Hieronymus) qui mihi dubitantis sus- picionem subindicare videtur. Nisi fortasse quis opinetur hunc de libris canon- icis Nicenum canonem una cum plurimis aliis, minimum (uti equidem arbitror) 47. Teste Divo Julio prime Romano ; hsereticorum fraude fuisse accisum , atque sublectum Ecclesiae. Cui ne suffragemur,cogit pia de sanctissimis patri- bus in concilio Laodiceno congregatis, existimatio. Non illos ea ajtate, qua canonum scientia imprimis ornabat Episcopos, tarn fuisse sui et nominis et of- ficii oblitos, ut illos aut nescierint, aut desideratos non requisierint. Ad haec si vere legitur quod ait Hieronymus legi, librum Judith, concilium Nicaenum inter canonicas computasse ; quid sibi vult quod idem praefatione in libris salomonis scribit. Ecclesiam libros Judith, Tobiae, Macca^beorum legere quidem, sed inter canonicas scripturas non recipere, hue usque Lindamus dubitantcs instar, subjungit definientes more, verum nihil hac de re in concilio Niceno fuisse de- finitum, ut existimem invitat quod hunc Laodicenum de scripturis canonicis canonem, una cum reliquis, synodus Constantinopolitana sexta in Trullo appro- barit, quod minime videtur fuisse factura, si designatum ^ 318, illis patribus Nicenis doclessimus juxta ac sanctissimis Laodiceni aut non recipissent, aut de- curtassent sacrarum scripturarum canonem. — Eninnldus tie Libris Apocryphis, Prtvlpctio. XV.

286 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

that this and m^ny more decrees besides, which the Council of Nice made, were afterwards pared away from it by fraudulent heretics : whereunto I cannot give my consent for the religious honor that I bear to the fathers of Laodicea, who in that age, when Bishops knew the canons of the church best, and when it was their great commendation to be skilful in them, could not be so far negligent, both of their credit and their duty, as neither to know them if they were extant, nor to seek after them if they were lost. Besides, if that were true, which, St. Hierome says, was read of the Book of Judith, that the Nicene Fathers took it into the canon, how shall we construe that which he writes in his preface before the books of Solomon, ' that though the church indeeds reads the history of Judith and Tobit, &,c., yet it doth not receive them into the number of Canonical Scrip- ture?' But that the Nicene Council determined nothing in this matter, I am the rather induced to believe, for the Sixth General Council at Constantinople approved the canon of Laodicea, which it would never have done, if the Fathers that met there had either rejected or mutilated the canon of Nice."

The reasoning of the Bishop, coupled with the considerations which have already been adduced, seems to be conclusive. The first General Synod of the Christian church, whatever other fol- lies it was permitted to perpetrate, was kept, in the merciful providence of God, from corrupting those records of eternal truth from which its sublime and memorable creed may be most tri- umphantly deduced. A pure faith has nothing to apprehend from unadulterated Scriptures.

II. It is unnecessary to notice what you have said of the Pro- vincial Synod at Alexandria, held in the year 339, or of the General Council at Constantinople, convened in 381. The prin- ciples of criticism, which have been repeatedly developed in the course of this discussion, furnish an abundant explanation of the real value of the quotations on which you have relied. In regard to Gregory Nazianzen, in particular, through whom you have rep- resented the Council of Constantinople as endorsing the books of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, I shall have occasion, hereafter, to show, that you have been grossly seduced into error. His testimony is clear and explicit, for the Jewish canon ; and if he

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 287

has quoted — as I am willing to admit that he has done — if he has quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture, or Divine Scripture, this fact only strengthens the position that such expressions were generic terms, comprehending the entire department of religious literature whether inspired or not.

III. I come now to the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, which, as their testimony on this subject is one, I shall treat as one; and as my object is not to puzzle but convince, I shall take no advantage of the difficulties which press the Roman Doc- tors in determining which of the Carthaginian Councils it was that enacted the famous decree touching the canonical books of Scripture. That decree is usually printed in the collections, as the forty-seventh canon of the third Council of Carthage, held in the year 397, and, so far as the writings of the Old Testament are concerned, is in these words :* "Moreover it is ordained that nothing beside the canonical Scriptures be read in the church under the name of Divine Scripture ; and the canonical Scriptures are these : Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, Four Books of the Kingdoms, two Books of Chronicles, Job, David's Psalter, Five Books of Solomon, the Books of the Twelve Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Two Books of Esdras, Two Books of the Maccabees."

Now the question is, what are we to understand by the phrase, "canonical Scriptures," as used in this decree? If it is synonymous with inspired Scriptures, then indeed you have produced a witness that the Apocrypha are entitled to Di- vine authority. If, on the other hand, it means something else, something quite distinct from inspired Scripture, then

* Item placuit, ut praeter scripturas canonicas, nihil in ecclesia legitur sub nomine divinarum scripturarum. Sunt autem canonicae scripturcE, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium, Jesus Nave, Judicum, Ruth, Reg- norum libri quatuor, Paralipomenoni libri duo. Job, Psalterium Davidicum, Sal- omonis libri quinqne, libri duodecim Prophetarum, Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Esdras libri duo, Machabaeomm libri duo. Novi autem Testament! Evangeliorum libri quatuor, Actuum Apostolorum liber unus, Pauli apostoli epistolae tredecim, ejusdem ad Hebra^os una, Petri apostoli duee, .Toannis apostoli tres, Judae apostoli una, Jacobi una, Apocalypsis Joannis liber nnu«!. — Concilium. Carthnsin. iii. cap. 48.

288 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

your cause, condemned by the voice of three centuries, is left without even the African protection which you had vainly hoped to find in the close of the fourth. Nay, if it could be proved that the Council of Carthage intended in this canon, to enumer- ate the books which were held to be inspired, the only protec- tion which Rome could receive from it is the " protection which vultures give to lambs." It is as much the interest of Papists as of Protestants to find a meaning which, without doing violence to the terms that are employed, shall be consistent with itself, and with the known opinions of the age, and at the same time exonerate the fathers from the charge of ignorance, folly, and wickedness, to which, if it was their purpose to draw up a list of the writings that had been given by inspiration of God, they are in some degree exposed. It cannot be denied that they were foolish, ignorant, and wicked, if they pronounced any book to be inspired without sufficient evidence; and it is equally indisputa- ble that no such evidence could have been possessed in behalf of any work which the Church, in every age before and after this provincial Synod, has concurred in rejecting as Apocryphal. And yet a book which, in the papal editions of the Bible, is placed, by authority, €2t7'a seriem canonicorum lihro7-2im, which has evidently no claims to inspiration, and which the Christian world, according to the showing of Romanists themselves, has never received as the word of God, is inserted by Carthage in its list of canonical books. Who can believe, who can even con- ceive, that it was the intention of the Fathers to outrage the sen- timents of the rest of Christendom, and to incur the awful male- diction of those who add to the words of Divine Revelation 1 To have perpetrated a deed of this sort, amid the light with which they were surrounded, a light so bright, that it has penetrated even to the darkened chambers of the papacy, would have mani fested a degree of impiety and blasphemy, which we cannot attribute to a body of which Augustine was a member. You, however, in the interpretation which you have given of their for- ty-seventh canon, have charged it upon them. It is susceptible of the clearest proof, that the two books of Esdras, which they have mentioned in their list, include the third. What, in the

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 289

Latin, Bellarinin himself admits,* is denominated the third book of Esdras, is, in the Greek copies of the Bible, entitled tlie first. What is, in the Latin, ihejirst and second, constitute in Greek but one volume, and are styled the second book of Esdras. So that, according to the Greek numeration, the first and second books of Esdras comprehend the Apocryphal third. Bellarmin has again informed us,+ that at the time when the Council of Carthage was convened, the universal Church used that transla- tion of the Bible which Jerome was accustomed to call the Vul- gate, and which was made from copies of the Septuagint, includ- ing the additions of the Hellenistic Jews. Hence, the Bibles of the Fathers at Carthage, under the name oi two hooks of Es- dras, embraced not only Nehemiah and Ezra, but that very third book of Esdras which Rome declares to be Apocryphal. | Now

* Nee minor est difficultas de lib. iii. Esdrae ; nam in Gra^cis codicibus ipse est, qui dicitur primus Esdrae, et qui apud nos dicuntur primus et secundus, in Graeco dicuntur secundus Esdrae. Quo circa versimile est, antiqua concilia et patres, cum ponunt in canone duos libros Esdrae, intelligere nomine duorum lib- rorum omnes tres. Sequebantur enim versionem septuaginta interpretum, apud quos tres nostri duo libri Esdrae nominantur. — Bellar. de Verbo Dei, lib. i. cap. 20.

t Utebatur autem eo tempore universa Ecclesia libris sacris juxta eam edi- tionem, quam S. Hieronymus praesatione in librum Esther, et saepe alibi, vul- gatam appellare solet, quae, ut ipse ait, Graecorum lingua et Uteris continetur. — Bellar. de Verbo Dei, lib.i. cap. 7.

X As the following extract so ably refutes Bellarmin's evasions, the reader, I hope, will excuse its length : —

Potest autem id videri falsum, Aug-ustinum scilicet et Carthaginensi concil- ium adnumerasse tertium Esdrae canonicis, cum duos tantum ejus Hbros in ca- none consignando nominent, sed si penitus introspicere volueritis, sub duorum nomine tertium quoque comprehendi intelligeris. Quod ut vobis planum fiat, principio notandum secus collocari libros Esdrae in Graeca editione quam in La- tina. Qui enim Latinis tertius, is est Graecis primus, qui Latinis primus et se- cundus, ii Graecis in unum volumen compinguntur, cui nomen Esdrae quod vero primum et secundum Esdrae unum Graeci numerent, ut Hieronymus docet, inde fieri id potuit, quia Hebrari sic numerant. Quod tertium Esdrae praefii- gant, inde videtur efiectum,quia ille liber historiam paulo alius repetit. Fuisse autem primum Graecis, qui est Latinis tertius, manifesturn est, quod si teste opus sitjfidem faciat Athanasius, qui in enunieratione librorum duos Esdrae nominal, priorem cujus initium est, et obtulit Josias Pascha, etc., et posteriorem, cujus initinm esse dicit in anno primo Cyri, Regis Persarum, etc., quae duo cum sint

291) ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

my argument is briefly this : if the Carthaginian Fathers in- tended to settle the canon of inspiration, they were guilty of great folly and wickedness; but the character of the men, particu- larly of Augustine, shows that they were not liable to such a

initia tertii et primi libri, clarissimum inde est, tertium ab eo primum numera- tum, secundum et primum ut secundum. Nam in quod Latinis Athanasii ex- emplaribus in margine adscripsit nescio quis (atqui hoc principium est capitis trigesimiquinti paralipomenon) per imperitatem factum est. Non enim ani- madvertit ille quisquis fuit, eadem verba exordiri tertium Esdras, sed animad- vertere id debuerat, atque errorem suum corrigere ex eodem capite, ubi Athan- asius agens de primo Esdrae, enumerat ea prope omnia, quae sunt in tertio Es- drae, adscripsit autem ille idem (ut videtur) haec haberi capite tertio et quarto libri secundi.

Id eo modo observatum est in Grsecis Biblionim editionibus ; nominatum in ea quae Venetiisex Aldi ofticina exivit, ubi cum duo tantum habeantur libri Es- drae, primus exorditur, quomodo noster tertius, secundus iisdem plane verbis, quibus Latina editio primum Esdrae inchoat. Ita manifestum est et antiquitus Athanasii tempore, et ab ejus seculo in Graecis editionibus veteris. Testamenti duobus Esdrae libris tertium comprehendi. In quo obiter notandum, doctissi- mos viros Franciscum Vatablum, Franciscum Junium,et Franciscum Lucam, eo parum animadverto, existimavisse tertium Esdrae Graece non extare. Vatablus quidem tertium Esdrae Graece nee sibi contigisse dicit videre, nee cuiquam quod sciat alteri. Quomodo etiam Junius, Herse libros duos, neque Hebraeice, neque Graece vidi (inquit ille) aut fuisse visos memini legere. Franciscus Lu- cas, paulo asseverantius tertiiim Esdrae nullo alio sermone extare ait praeterquam Latino. In quam ille opinione inductus erat eo, quod neque in complutensibus exemplaribus, neque in Bibliis sequitur Nehemiam, sed in earn partem rejicitur, ubi Apocryphi ponentur. Hoc tandum Lucas vidit, et agnovit, et confessus est se deceptuni, etc., sed quod ad rem praesentem facit, affirmat ibi Lucas, tertium Esdrae Latinorum, esse primum Graecis. Atque hoc est, quod primum observa- tum volui, proximo loco animadvertere deletis Augustinum et patres Cartha- ginenses in canone consignando, et alios in disputationibus fuit translatione Latina e Graeca 70, editione versa, uti consuevisse, quod ipse planum facit ubi citato illo loco. Et formavit Deus hominem pulverem de terra : subjungit, sicut Grseci codices habent, unde in Latinam linguam scriptura ipsa conversa est. Man- ifestius autem id dicit, ubi rem ex professo disputat. Nam cum fuerint (inquit Augustinus) et alii interpretes, etc., banc tamen, quae septuaginta est, tanquam sola esset, sic recipit Ecclesia, eaque utuntur Graeci populi Christiani, quorum plerique utrum alia sit aliqua ignorant. Ex hac 70, interpretatione etiam in Latinam linguam interpretatum est, quod Ecclesiae Latinae tenent, quamvis non defuerit temporibus nostris presbyter Hieronymus homo doctissimus, et omnium trium linguarum peritus, qui non ex Graeco, sed ex Hebraeo in Latinum eloqui- um easdem scripturas convertit, ac qui sequuntur. Ex ut disertis verbis Augus-

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 291

charore ; therefore, they did not intend to determine the canon of inspired books.

This conclusion is confirmed by the fact, that the decree itself was conditional ; the church beyond the sea, as we gather

tinus 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 tempor- ibus Hieronymus summa fide ex Hebraicis fontibus converteret, Ecclesia tamen praeferret earn editionem, quae ex Graeca 70. Lalina facta est. Id quod et loco superiore docuit Augustinus, et praecipue in Epistolis, ubi ad Hieronyinum sic scribit. Ego sane te mallem Graecas potius canonicas nobis interpretari scrip- turas, quae 70, interpretum authoritate perhibentur. Perdurum erit enim, si tua interpretatio per multas Ecclesias frequentius ceperit lectitari, quod k Graecis Ecclesiis Latinae Ecclesiae dissonabunt, etc., et alibi petit a Hieronymo.ut in- terpretationem suam Bibliorum e 70, mittat. Ideo autem (inquit) desidero interpretationem tuam de 70, ut et tanta Latinorum, qui qualescunque hoc ausi sunt, quantum possumus imperitia careamus : et hi qui me invidere putant utili- bus laboribus tuis, eandem ahquando si fieri potest, intelligant, propterea me nolle tuam ex Hebraeo interpretationem in Ecclesiis legi. Ne contra Septua- ginta auctoritatem, tanquam novum aliquid proferentes, magno scandalo pertur- bemus plebes Christi, quarum aures et corda illam interpretationem audire con- sueverunt, quae ab apostolis approbata est. Denique in libris de Doctrina Chris- tiana, vult ille Latinos codices veteris testamenti, si necesse fuerit, Graecorum auctoritate emendandos et eorum potissimum, qui cum 70 essent, ore uno inter- pretate esse perhibentur, etc., locus consulatur. Neque vero hacc Augustinus solum luculente testatur, sed et reliqui scriptores, qui in eum commentarios scripserunt, vel de eo loquuti sunt. In quibus Ludovicus vires in praefatione comment, ait Augustinum versonem 70, interpretum ubique adducere. Et in ipsis commetariis ostendit (inquit) olim Ecclesias Latinas usas interpretatione Latina ex 70, versa, non hac Hieronymi, ut mirer esse qui tantum nefas existi- ment translationes attingi, modo sobrie ac prudenter fiat.

Sixtus Senensis duas fuisse docet in Ecclesia Latinas editiones V. T. no- ram scilicet ac veterem. Vetus decidem (inquit ille) vulgatae et communis nomen accepit, tum quia nullum certum haberet auctorem,tum quia non de He- bra?o fonte, sed de Koivrj, vel de Septuaginta interpretatione sumpta esset, quem admodum August 18, De Civit. Dei, c. 43, et Hieronymus in praefatione Evan- geliorum testantur, cujus lectione usa est Ecclesia longe ante tempora Hierony- mi, ac etiam multo post, usque ad tempora Gregorii Papae. Nova vero a Hie- ronymo non de Graeca, 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 praefatione moralium meminit, inquiens: Novam translationem deferro, sed cum probationis causa me exigit, nunc veter- rm. novam pro testimonio assume : ut quia sedes Apost. cui aut bore Deo prae-

292 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

from an ancient note, was to be consulted for its confirmation] The Council of Carthage, then, received the books mentioned in its list as canonical, provided the transmarine churches would

fideo utraque utitur, mei quoque labor studii ex utroque fulciatur. Haec apud Sixtum, unde liquet longe ante tempora Hieronymi, ad usque Gregorium, (quasi ad 600 annos) in usu fuisse translatione Latinam e Graeca 70. Adeoque recte colligi Augustinum et Carthageniensis concilii patres editionem illam Graecam 70, sequutos esse. Quid quod Bellarminus ipse hoc agnoscit, veteres sequutos esse versionem septuaginta 1 apud quos (inquit) qui nobis Esdrse tertius est, fuit primus, siccine? quomodo ergo te expedies e laqueo rationis nostras? conatur ille quidem expedire se, sed haeret ut mus in pisa. Majorem revera ait esse dif- ficultatem de tertio, Esdrae quam de quarto. Sed respondet,etsi duo libri Grsec- orum sint nostris tertius, non tamen sequi patres antiquos cum duos Esdrae in canone ponant, nostras tres intellexisse, quid ita ? quatuor nimirum rationes ad- hibet e quibus pleraeque non attingunt nostram sententiam, certe nullae labe- factant.

Prima ratio haec est. Quia Melito, Epiphanius, Hilarius, Hieronymus, Ruffinus, aperte sequuti sunt Hebraeos, qui tertium Esdrae non agnoscunt, quid tum 1 Ergone Augustinus cum duos Esdrae accenseat, non intellexit nostras tres 1 quia scilicet. Melito, Epiphanius, Hilarius, Hieronymus, Ruffinus, aperte se- quuti sunt Hebraeos. Ergo Augustinus non est sequutus editionem Graecam Septuaginta ? perinde ratiocinatur ac siquis diceret Socrates, Plato, veteres aca- demici vocarunt Deum ideam boni, etc. Ergo ac Aristoteles et Peripateti- corum schola sic vocavit, si nondum appareat hujus rationis infirmitas, at fa- cimile apparebit in ratione simtli quam adjungam. Melito, Epiphanius, Hil- arius, Hieronymus et Ruffinus rejecerunt e canone sacrarum Scripturarum libros Sapientiae, Ecclesiastici, Tobiae, Judith, etc., ergo et Augustinus hos rejecit, et concilium Carthaginensi, haec nisi ratio firma sit, videtis quam infirma sit altera.

Secunda Bellarmini ratio ea est a precibus publicis et usu Ecclesiastico of- ficii. Quia jam diu nihil legitur ex illo libro in officio Ecclesiastico, quid inde 1 An ergo Augustinus cum duos Esdrae libros in canone numeraret, non intellexit nostras tres ? aut Augustini tempore a patribus Carthaginensibus non habeba- tur tertius Esdrae in canonicis ] perinde hoc estac siquis ita ratiocinetur. Ex- ulat jam diu papatus ex Anglia, ergo Henrici VI. tempore exulavit. Imo ab- surdior ilia ratio quam haec, quo proprius abfuit ab aetate nostra Henrici VI. Reg- num, quam Augustini temporae, cum ille ab hinc non ultra 100 annos floruerit, ab Augustino ultra 1000 effluxerint, quo temporis decursu multa mutari pote- rant, Bellarminus enim ipse fatetur, Augustini tempore monachos tonderi solitos fuisse, suo vadi, potuit tamen simili ratione uti. Jamdiii in usu fuit, ut rede- rentur monachi, ergo August, tempore non solebam tonderi.

Sed fortasse tertia ratio subtilior, que ab auctoritate Gelasii ducitur. Is nam-

que unum tantum Esdrae librum in canone ponit, id est (inquit Bellar.) nostros

uos, optime, conceditur enim, postea rem penitus introspiciemus, et videbi-

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 293

consent. Surely it could not mean that these books are inspired, provided the transmarine churches will agree that they are so. The evidence of their inspiration was either complete to the Coun- cil, or it was not. If it was complete, they were bound, as faithful ministers of Christ, to say unconditionally and absolutely that these books belong to the rule of faith. Under such cir- cumstances, to have enacted a conditional decree, was treason against truth, and impiety to God. Why consult 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 object 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 is not the Pope alone, nor a general Council that they proposed to consult — it was the church beyond the sea — transmarina ec- clesia — the Bishop of Rome, or the other Bishops of those parts, and if every Bishop and Doctor connected with this church, with Boniface himself at their head, had been assembled in coun- cil, and had given their decision, their voice would have been only the voice of a Provincial Si/nod, and, therefore not entitled to be received, according to your doctrine, as the infallible dic-

mus utrum unum ille tantum numeret. Interim concedant Gelasium, qui vixit centum annos post Aug. et Carthag. Cone, unum tantum Estlra3 lib. in canone posuisse, quid vero hoc ad August, et Cartiiag. paties ? An deinde illi non nu- merarunt duos 1 an duorum nomine nostros tres non significarunt ? Quid ni ergo sic ratiocinent M. Crassus partib. optimatum favit, ergo C. Marius non fuit popularis ? Hajc argumenta si in nostris scholis supponcrentur, credo vide- rentur a pueris, venmi cum superuntur d Jcsuitis, quodam ni {aWoT Kpvipsui arti- ficio insolubilia habebuntur.

Verum enim vero fortassis artificio Rhetorum fimiissimam rationem pos- tremo loco reservavit. Ea erit palmaria. Namque Hieronymus (inquit Bel- lanninus) aperte docet, tertium Esdrae non modo non apud Hebrajos haberi, sed neque apud Septuaginta. An id aperte docet Hier. 1 eo certe delapsum esse Bell, miror, consulite Hieron, (videbiiis eum non modo aperte docere, quae ei affingit Bellar. : sed nee omnino, imo contrarium statuere, qui consensu anti- quorum, qui testimoniis, e tertio Esdrae persaepe usi, postea mihi pluribus erit confirmandum.) — liainoldus, de Libris Apocryphis, Fraslcctio xxviii.

294 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

tate of the Holy Ghost. The conduct of the Carthaginian Fa- thers, in passing a conditional decree, if their design was to settle the canon of inspiration, is wholly inexplicable. They virtually 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 evi- dently 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 Augustine, 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 canonical Scriptures which coincides pre- cisely with the catalogue of Carthage ;* and yet there is abun- dant proof that several of the books which are mentioned in his list, Augustine did not believe to be inspired.

* Totus autem canon Scripturarum, in quo istam considerationem versan- dam dicimus, his libris continetur. Quinque Moyseos, id est Genesi, Exodo, Levitico, Numeris, Deuteronomio ; ac uno libro Jesu Nave, uno Judicum, uno libello qui appellatur Ruth, qui magis ad Regnorum principium videtur pertinere ; deinde quatuor Regnorum et duobus Paralipomenon, non consequentibus, sed qua- si a latere adjunctis simulque pergentibus. Haec est historia, qua sibimet annexa tempora continet, atque ordinem rerum : sunt aliae tamquam ex diverse ordine, quae neque huic ordine, neque inter se connectuntur, sicut est Job, et Tobias, et Esther, et Judith, et Machabaeorum libri duo, et Esdrae duo, qui magis subsequi videntur ordinatam illam historian! usque ad Regnorum vel Paralipomenon ter- minatam deinde prophetae, in quibus David unus liber Psalmorum, et Salmonis tres, Proverbiorum, Cantica Canticorum, et Ecelesiastes. Nam illi duo libri, unus qui Sapientia, que alius qui Ecclesiasticus inscribitur, de quodam simili- tudine Salomonis esse dicuntur : nam Jesus Sirach eos conscripsisse constan- tissime perhibetur, quitame quoniam in auctoritatem recipi meruerunt, inter pro- pheticos numerandi sunt. Reliqui sunt eorumlibri, qui proprie prophetse appellan- tur, duodecim prophetarum libri singuli, qui connexi subimet, quoniam numquam sejuncti sunt, pro uno habentur : quorum prophetarum nomina sunt haec, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Michoeas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias : deinde quatuor prophetae sunt majorum voluminum, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel ; his quadraginta quatuor libris ; Testamenti veteris terminatur auctoritas. — .S. Augustini Episcopi de Doctrina Christiana, lib. ii. cap. 8.

APOCRFPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 295

In the twenty fourth chapter of the seventeenth book of his City of God, he remarks* " that in all the time after their re- turn from Babylon, till the days of our Saviour, the Jews had no prophets after Malachi, Haggai, and Zechariah, who prophesied at that time, and Ezra ; except another Zachariah, father of John, and his wife Elizabeth, just before the birth of Christ; and after his birth, old Simeon and Anna, a widow of a great age ; and John last of all." Again, t " From Samuel the prophet to the Babylonish Captivity, and then to their return from it, and the rebuilding 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 composi- tion, 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 re- ceived as authoritative in religion, wrote some thingrs as men of historic investigation, and others as Prophets, of Divine inspira- tion : the two were kept distinct that the former might be attri- buted to the men themselves, the latter to God, who spoke through the prophets." A prophet, then, is a person '* to whom

* Toto autem illo tempore, ex quo redierunt de Babylonia, post Malachiani, Aggorum et Zachariam, qui turn prophetarerunt et Esdram, non habuemnt prophetas usque ad Salvatoris adventum, nisi aliam Zachariam patrem Johan- nis, que Elisabet ejus uxorem, Christi nativitate jam proxima ; et eo jam nato, Simeouem senem, et Annam viduam jamque grandffivam et ipsam Johannem novissimum. — S. Augustini Episcopi de Civitate Dei, lib. xvii. cap. 24.

t Hoc itaque tempus, ex quo sanctus SamutJl prophetare coepit, et dein- ceps donee populus Israel capti\Tis in Babyloniam ducereter, atque inde se- cundum sancti Jeremiae prophetiam post septuaginta annos reversis Israelitis Dei domus instauraretur, totum tempus est Prophetarum. — Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. xvii. c. 1.

t Cujus rei, fateor causa me latet ; nisi quod estimo, etiam ipsos, qu'bus ea quae in auctoritate religionis esse debent, sanctus utique spiritus revelabat, alia sicut homines historica diligentia, alia sicut prophetas inspiratione divina scri- bere potuisse ; atque haec ita fuisse distincta, ut ilia tamquam ipsis, ista vero tamquam Deo per ipsos loquenti, judicarentur esse tribuenda ac sic ilia pertine- [ rent ad ubertatem cognitionis, haec ad religionis auctoritatem. — Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. xviii. c. 38.

296 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

the Holy Spirit is accustomed to reveal what ought to be re- ceived as authoritative in religion " — he is a man vi^ho speaks by " Divine inspiration," and does not depend upon his diligence and industry for the truths which he communicates. 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 terras of equivalent extension. When, therefore, he says, that from Ezra to Christ, no prophet appeared among the Jews, he unquestion- ably means that the gift of inspiration was withdrawn, and that, consequently, no works written during that period 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." There- fore, according to Augustine, a large portion of the Apocrypha is not inspired.

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 subject 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 car- ries the book from which the Christian derives his faith. The Jews are our librarians." Again, he says, in another disserta- tion :t " 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

* Propterea adhuc Judeei sunt, ut libros nostros portent ad confusionem suam. Quando enim volumus ostendere paganis prophetatum Christum, pro- ferimus paganis istas litteras. Quia omnes ipsae litterae, quibus Christus pro- phetatus est, Judseos sunt, omnes ipsas literas habent Judaei, proferimus codi- ces ab inimicis, ut confundamus alios inimicos. Codicem portat Judaeus, unde credat Christianus librarii nostri facti sunt. — Aug. in Psa. Ivi.

t Et quid est aliud hodie que gens ipsa Judaeorum, nisi quaedam seriniaria Christianorum, bajulans legem et prophetas ad testimonium aseertiones Eccle- iae. — Aug. lib. xii. contra Faust, cap. 13.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 297

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 acknowledged by the Hebrew na- tion, it is demonstrably certain, that he could not have admitted any part of the Apocrypha into the sacred canon. We may come down, accordingly, to particular books, and show that some of them are, by him, expressly and unequivocally excluded. The book of Judith, he informs us, possessed no canonical authority among the Jews.f Of the Maccabees he says,| " The Jews do not receive the Scripture of the Maccabees, as they do the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, to which our Lord bears testimony. But it is received by the Church not unprofitably, if it be read and heard soberly, especially for the sake of the history of the Maccabees, who suffered so much from the hand of persecutors, for the sake of the Law of God." Whatever the reception was, which the church gave to these books, Augustine justifies it, not on account of their Divine authority, but chiefly or especially 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 strongest of all possible reasons for receiv- ing them. We defer to the instructions of an inspired composi- tion, not because its lessons are useful, but we know that its les- sons must be useful because it is inspired. Speaking, in another place, of these same books, he says,§ " The account of these

* Demonstrant Ecclesiam suam in prescripto Legis, in Prophetarum pre- dictis, in Psalmoruni Cantibus, hoc est, in omnibus canonicis sanctoriuii libro rum actoritatibus. — Aug. de Unit. Eccl. c. 15.

t Per idem tempus etiam ilia Bunt gesta, quae oonscripta sunt in libro .Tu- dith, quem sane in canone Scripturaruni Judaei non recepisse dicuntur. — Aug. de Civ. Dei. lib. xviii. c. 26.

t Et hanc Scripturam, quae appellatur Macchabaeorum, non habent Judaei, sicut Legem et Prophetas et Psalmos, quibus Dominus testimonium perhibet ; sed recepta est ab ecclesia non inutiliter, si sobrie legatur et audiatur, maxime propter illos Macchabacos, qui pro Dei lege, sicut veri martyres, a persecutori- bus tam indigna atque horrenda perpessi sunt, &c. — Contr. Gaudent. Donat. l,i. cap. 31,n.38. T. ix.

§ Quorum supputatio temporum non in scripturis Sanctis, quae canonicae ap- pellantur, sed in aliis invenitur,in quibus sunt et Macchabaeorum libri, quos non JudsRi, sed Ecrlesin pro canonicis habet, propter quonimdam Martyrum pas-

14

5298 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

times is not found in those lioly Scriptures which are called ca- nonical, but in other works, among which also are the books of the Maccabees which the Jews do not, but which the church does, esteem to be canonical, on account of the violent and ex- traordinary sufferings of certain Martyrs, who, previously to the advent of Christ in the flesh, contended even unto death for the Law of God, and endured grievous and horrible calamities." Here again these books are canonical among Christians, not he- cause they are inspired, but on account of the examples of he- roic martyrdom with which they are adorned. The language of this passage is remarkable. The Maccabees are first carefully distinguished from those Divine Scriptures which are called ca- nonical, and then it is immediately added that the church receives them as canonical. Here, then, is either a contradiction, (for it is preposterous to limit the firfet clause so as to make Augustine assert that these books did not belong to the Scriptures called canonical by the Jews — his words are absolute and general,) or the term canonical is used in two distinct and separate senses, in one of which it might be universally affirmed that the Macca- bees were not canonical ; in the other, that they were canonical in the Christian, though not in the Jewish Church. I might also show, but I do not wish to protract the argument, that Augustine rejected Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom from the list of inspired compositions.*

If, as we have seen, Augustine did not receive the Apocrypha as any part of the Word of God, what did he mean by canonical Scriptures in the catalogue to which we have already referred ? I answer, without hesitation, books which might be profitably read in the churches for the public instruction of the faithful.

That some of the ancient churches had a canon of readino- distinct from the canon of inspired writings, may be gathered from the testimony of Athanasius, Jerome, and Ruffinus. The passage from Athanasius is quoted in another part of this discus- sion. Jerome says,t " As, therefore, the church reads the books

siones vehementes atque mirabiles, qui ante quam Christus venisset in carnem usque ad mortem pro Dei lege certaverunt, at mala gravissima atque horribilia pertulerunt. — Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. xviii. c. 36.

* See Cosin's Scholastical Hist. Canon under Augustine.

t Sicut ergo Judith, et Tobiee, et Macchabaeorum libros legit quidem Ec-

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 299

of Judith, Tobias, and Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads these two volumes (Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, but not for authority to prove the doctrines of religion." Ruf- fin says,* " It ought, however, to be known, that there are also other books which are not canonical, but have been called by our forefathers, ecclesiastical ; as the Wisdom of Solomon, and another which is called the Wisdom of the Son ofSirach, and among the Latins is called by the general name of Ecclesiasti- cus : 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 Judith, and the books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament 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 al- leged by way of authority, for proving articles of faith."

Now the preface to Augustine's catalogue shows conclusively that he was not answering the question, what books were inspired, but another question, what books might be read.t He first di-

clesia, sed eos inter canonicas Scripturas non recipit, sic et haec duo volumina (Sapientiam et Ecclesiasticum) legit ad aedificationem plebis,non ad auctorita- tem Ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam. — Hieron. Frafat. in. Libros Salonwnis.

* Secundum tamen est, quod et alii libri sunt, qui non canonici, sed Ec- clesiastici a majoribus appellati sunt, ut est sapientia Salomonis, et alia sapien- tia, quae dicitur filii Sirach. Ejusdem ordinis est libeilus Tobioe, et Judith, et Maccabaeorum libri. In Novo vero Testamento libeilus, qui dicitur Pastoris sine Hermatis,qui appellatur Duoe Viae, vel judicium Petri ; quae omnia legi qui- dem in ecclesiis voluerunt, non tamen proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei con- firmandam.— Ruffin. in Symbolo ad Calcem Cypriani. Oxon. p. 2G.

t Erit igitur Divinarum Scripturarum solertissimus indagator, qui primo totas legerit, notasque habuerit, et si nondum intellectu, jam tamen lectione, dum laxat easquae appellantur canonicae. Nam ceteras securius leget fide veri- tatis instructis, ne praeoccupcnt imbecillem animum, et periculosis mendaciis atque i)li;mtasmatis eludentep, piaejudicent ali(]uid contra sanam intelligentiam. In canonicis autem Scripturis Eccla^searum Catholicarum quam plurimum auc- toritatem sequatur, inter quaa sane illae sint, qua? Apostolicas sedes habere et Epistolas accipere meruerunt. Tenebit igitur hunc modum in Scripturis canon- icis, ut eas quae ab omnibus accipiuntur Ecclesiis Catholicis prapponat eis quas quaedam non accipiunt : in eis vero quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus praeponat eas quas plure.s gravioreaque accipiunt. eis quas pauciores minorisque auctorita-

300 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

vides the Divine Scriptures into two general classes : those which were, and those which were not canonical, and gives the general advice, that he who would make himself skilful in the Scriptures, should confine his reading to those which were canonical. Then he draws a distinction between the canonical hooks thefnselves^ and shows that some, even of this class, were entitled to much more deference and respect than others. He directs his diligent in- quirer, *' to prefer such as are received by all catholic churches, to those which some do not receive ;" and with regard to such as are not received by all, he advises him " to prefer those which are received by many and eminent churches, to those which are received by few churches, and of less authority." Now, Trent itself being witness, all inspired Scripture is entitled to equal veneration and respect. No matter if every church under heaven should agree to reject it, the obligation, supposing its inspira- ration to be known, would still be perfect to receive and obey it. Its authority does not depend upon the numbers who submit to it, but upon the proofs that it came from God. These proofs can neither be increased nor diminished by the multitude or pau- city of those who are convinced by them. If they should be con- fined to a single church, and that church should proclaim them to a faithless world, the world would be as strongly bound to listen and believe, as though a thousand sees had joined in the act. From the nature of the case, evidence perfectly conclusive of their Divine inspiration must, in regard to some of the Epis- tles, have existed, at first, only in a single congregation ; and even while other churches had not yet received them, their au- thority was just as perfect and complete as it afterwards became, when all Christendom confessed them to be Divine. It is conse- quently preposterous to measure the authority of inspired Scrip- ture by the number, dignity, and importance of the churches that acknowledge its claims. But if the question be, what books, in the estimation of those who are competent to judge, may be safely read for practical improvement, then the rule of Augustine

tis Ecclesiae tenent. Si autem alias invenerit a pluribus, alias a gravioribus haberi, quamquam hoc facile invenire non possit, aequalis tamen auctoritatis habendas puto. — Aug. de Doctrina Christ, lib. ii. c. 8.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 301

is just and natural. You must inquire into the experience of the Christian world, if you wish to ascertain the works which God has eminently blessed to the comfort, holiness, stability, and peace of his chosen children. It seems, as we gather from Augustine's Preface, that there were works in circulation under the title of Divine Scriptures, abounding in falsehoods perilous to the soul, which could not, therefore, be read with safety or with profit. In contradistinction from these dangerous books, those which might be read with security and advantage, were pronounced to be canonical, and his whole purpose was to fur- nish a catalogue of safe religious works, in order to guard against the hazard and detriment to which the minds of the ignorant and unskilful would be otherwise exposed. By canonical, therefore, he means nothing more than useful or expedient as a rule of life. The word will evidently bear this meaning. It is a gen- eral term, and, in itself considered, expresses no more than what is fit to be a rule, without any reference to the authority which prescribes it, or the end to which it is directed. In its applica- tion to the inspired Scriptures, it conveys the idea of an authori- tative rule or standard of faith, simply because they can be a rule of no other kind. But there is nothing in the nature of the term itself, which prevents it from being used to signify a rule for the conduct of life, collected either from the experience of the good, the observation of the wise, or the reasoning of the learned. In this sense, an uninspired composition may be eminently canoni- cal— it may supply maxims of prudence for the judicious regula- tion of life, which, though they are commended by no divine authority, are yet the dictates of truth and philosophy, and will be eagerly embraced by those who are anxious to walk circum- spectly, and not as fools. We do no violence, then, to the lan- guage of Augustine, when we assert that by canonical books, which he opposes to those that were dangerous and deceptive, he meant books which were calculated to edify by the useful rules which they furnished, without any reference to the sources, whether supernatural or human, from which they were derived.

This interposition is strikingly confirmed by the grounds on which, as we have already seen, Augustine admitted the Maccabees to be canonical. It also reconciles the apparent contradiction, when

302 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

in the same sentence he declares them to be and not to be ca- nonical. They are not canonical in the same sense in which the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms were canonical, but they were canonical in a subordinate sense, as stimulating piety by praise-worthy examples.

Having ascertained the opinions of Augustine, we are now prepared to inquire into the meaning of the Council of Carthage. It seems from the testimony of Ruffinus, that the African Churches were accustomed to read other books for the public instruction of the faithful, such for instance, as the Shepherd of Hermas, beside those which were held to be inspired. As many works were published under fallacious and deceitful titles, and were current under the name of Divine Scriptures, it was thought proper, in order to guard the Churches against every composi- tion of this kind, to draw up a list containing all the works which might be safely and profitably read. To furnish a catalogue of this sort was, I apprehend, the sole design of the forty seventh can- on. And for the purpose of securing uniformity in the public worship of God, it was wise and judicious to consult the church- es beyond the sea. This interpretation, which the language will obviously bear, saves the council from the folly, wickedness and disgrace of pronouncing the third book of Ezra to be inspired, and of contradicting the testimony of all the past ages of the Church on the subject of the sacred canon. That this was the meaning, is distinctly intimated in the very phraseology of the Council itself '' It is ordained that nothing but the canonical Scriptures be read in the church, under the name of Divine Scrip- tures." It is not said, nothing shall be received as inspired by the faithful, but nothing shall be read. Then in the close of the canon, as if to put the matter beyond the possibility of doubt, it is added: "For the confirmation of this canon, our brother and fellow priest Boniface, or the other bishops of those parts, will take notice that we have received from our fathers these books to be read in the churches. The sufferings of the martyrs may also be read when their anniversaries are celebrated."* This paragraph

* Item placuit, ut praeter Scripturas canonicas, nihil in Ecclesia legatur sub nomine divinarum Scrip turarum, sunt autem canonicae Scripturae, Genesis, Ex-

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED, 303

explains the decree. We see from Athanasius, Jerome, and Ruf- finus what they received from the fathers : and they expressly incorporate uninspired legends, the sufferings of the martyrs, among the books that may be read, showing that their object was to regulate the public reading of the church, and not to deter- mine the canon of inspiration.

This, accordingly, is the interpretation which distinguished Romanists have themselves put upon the language of the Council. Cardinal Cajetan, at the close of his commentary on the historical books of the Old Testament, observes :* " And here we close our commentaries of the historical books of the Old Testament. For the others (Judith Tobit and Maccabees) are not reckoned by St. Je- rome among the canonical books, but are placed among the Apoc- ryphal, together with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Let not the novice be disturbed if, in other

odus, Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium, Jesus Nave, Judicum, Ruth, Regno- rum libri quatuor, Paralipomenon libri duo. Job, Psalterium Davidicum, Salo- monis libri quinque, libri duodecim Prophetarum, Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Esdrae libri duo, Macchabaeorum libri duo. Novi autem Testamenti, Evangelicorum libri quatuor, Actuum Apostolorum liber unus, Pauli Apostoli Epistolas tredecim, ejusdem ad Haebreos una, Petri Apostoli duae, Johannis Apostoli ties, Judae Apostoli una, et Jacobi una, Apocalypsis Joannis liber unus.

Hoc etiam fratri et consacerdoti nostro Bonifacio, vel aliis earum partium Episcopis pro confirmando isto canone, innotescat, quia a patribus ista accipi- mus in Ecclesia legenda. Liceat etiam legi passiones martyrum.cum anniver- sarii dies eorum celebrantur. — Court. Carth. iii. c. 47.

* Et hoc in loco tenninamus commentaria Librorum Historialium V. T. Nam reliqui (viz., Judith, Tobia, et Maccab. libri,) a S. Hieronymo extra ca- nonicos libros supputantur, et inter Apocrypha locantur, cum libro Sapientiae, Ecclesiastico, ut patet in prologo Galeato. Nee turberis, Novitie, si alicubi re- pereris libros istos inter canonicos supputari, vel in sacris conciliis, vel in sacris Doctoribus. Nam ad Hieronymi limam reducenda sunt tarn verba conciliorum, quam Doctorum ; et juxta illius sententiam ad Chroni. et Heliod. Episcopos, libri isti (et si qui alii sunt in canone Bibliae similes) non sunt canonici, hoc est, non sunt Regulares ad firmandum ea quae sunt Fidei ; possunt tamen dici canonici, hoc est, Regulares ad aedificationem fidelium, utpote in canone Bibliae ad hoc recepti et aulhorati. Cum hoc enim distinciione discernere poteris et dicta Augustini in 2 de Doctr. Christiana, que scripta in Cone. Flor. sub Eug. 4, scripta que in provincialibus Conciliis Carthag. et Laodic. et ab Innocentio, ac Gelasio Pontificibus. — Cajetan in lib. Esther, sub finem.

304 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

places, he should find that these books were counted among the canonical, either by holy councils or holy doctors. For to the rule of Jerome, the words as well of councils as of doctors must be reduced. And according to his opinion, these books and all similar ones in the canon of the Bible, are not canonical, that is, are not regular (or to be used as a rule) for confirming articles of faith : though they may be called canonical, that is, regular (or may be used as a rule) for the edification of the faithful, and are received and authorized in the canon of the Bible only for this end :" and with this distinction, he informs us, we are to understand St. Austin and the Council of Carthage. So that, upon the showing of one of the Trent doctors — a man who was reputed to be the very prince of Theologians — the Council of Car- thage makes nothing in your favor. It was not treating of the canon of inspiration, but of the canon for public reading.* -4 III. Passing over your citations from Pope Siricius and Julius Firmicus Maternus as presenting nothing worthy of a reply, I shall make a few remarks upon Ephrem the Syrian,[^Ae Prophet of the whole world and the Lyre of the Holy Ghost. That he has quoted the Apocrypha, admits of no question — that he believed them to be inspired, is quite a different matter, and one, in reference to which you have produced not a particle of proof There are two facts, however, which you have thought proper to pass without notice, that create a very strong presump- tion, if they do not amount to a positive proof, against the position which you have undertaken to sustain. 1. Ephrem repeatedly asserts that Malachi was the last of the prophets.^ Therefore no books written subsequently to his time, could have been inspired ; and therefore nearly the whole of the Apocrypha must be excluded from the canon.

* See Bingham's Origines Ecclesiast. lib. xiv. c. 3, § 16.

t Judaeorum sacrificia prophetae declarant immunda fuisse. Quae ergo Esaias hoc loco hominum canumve cadaveribus aequiparat, Malachias, Prophe- tarum ultimus, animalium retrimenta vocat, non offerenda Deo, sed offerentium in ora cum approbatione rejicienda. (Malach. ii.3.) — Comment. inEs. Ixvi. 3, T. ii. Syr. p. 94. C. D. Malachias, omnium Prophetarum postremus, populo commendat legem, et legis coronidem Joannem, quem Eliam cognominat. — Comm. in Malach. iv. 4, ih. p. 315, c.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 305

2. Ephrem, though he commented upon all of the canonical, wrote no commentary upon any of the Apocryphal books.* Why does he omit Baruch, in commenting upon Jeremiah ; and why omit the Song of the Three Children, the story of Susan- nah, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, if he believed that these works were parts respectively of Jeremiah and Daniel, and entitled to equal authority with the rest of the books 1 Asseman informs ust that the corrupt 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 that he held them to be historically true, and practically useful. Why, then, sever them, in his commentaries, from the books to which they were generally attached, and of

* Hebedjesu Chaldaeus, e Nestorianorum secta Episcopus Solensis, In cata- logo Scriptorum Syrorum, num. 51. Ephraemi opera enumerat, his verbis: Ephraem magnus, qui Syrorum Propheta cognominatus est, edidit commentaria in libros Genesis, Exodi, Sacerdotum, (Levitici,) Josui filii Nun,Judicum, Sam- uelis, (primum et secundum Regum), in Libruni Regum (tertium et quartum), Davidis, (Psalmorum), Tsaiae, Duodecim, (minorium Prophetarum, Jeremiae, Ezechielis,et Beati Danielis. Habet etiam Libros, et Epistolas de Fidei,et Ec- clesia. Edidit quoque Orafiones Metricas, Hymnos, et Cantica : Cantusque omnes Defunctorum : et Lucubrationes ordine Alphabetico : et Disputationem adversus Judaeos : nee non adversus Simonem, et Bardesanem, et contra Mar- cionem, atque Aphitas : demum solutionem impietatis Juliani. Ubi Hebedjesu ea dumtaxat Ephraemi opera recenset, quae ipse legit, vel ad manus habuit. Nam Ephraemum alia plura edidisse, quam quae hie numerantur, certum est ex auctoribus supra relatis, et ex codice nostro Syriaco iii. in quo habentur commen- taria ejusdam in numeros, in Deuteronomium. — Assem. Biblio. Orien. vol. i. p. 58.

t Quae D. Hieronymus ex Theodotione transtulit Danielis capita, nimirum Cnnticum triuni puerorum, cap. 3, a vers. 24, ad vers. 91, Historiam Susannae, Bel idol, et Draconis, atque Danielis in locum leonum missi,cap. 14, ea et P^ph- ra)m Ilebraecum Textum sequutus, in hisce commentariis tacitus praeteriit. Haec eniin in vulgata Syrorum versione hand extabant ; licet postea ex Graecisexem- l)laribn.'^ in sennone Syriacum a recentioribus Interpretatibus conversa fuerint. — Ay^snn. Bibli'). Orien. vol. i. pp. 72.

And yet Gregory Nyssen, as cited by As.seman, toin. i. pp. 56, says that Ephrem commented upon the whole Bible I Could these additions to Daniel, then, have been a i)art of it ?

14* '

306 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

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 He' hrew canon.

IV. Your appeal is just as unfortunate to the great Basil, Bishop of CaBsarea. Several of you citations are taken from that portion of the Treatise against Cunomius which is not uni- versally admitted to be genuine. The last two books have been called into question. Still, upon the principles 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 Apocry- pha which he chose to accommodate. We have, however, positive evidence that he admitted as inspired only the books which were acknowledged by the Jews. In the Philocalia, or hard places of Scripture, collected by him and Gregory Na- zianzen, out of Origen's works, he proposes the question,* " Why were only twenty-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 Cunomius, having quoted the passage in the eighth chapter of Proverbs, *' The Lord pos- sessed me in the beginning of his days," Basil observes t 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 de- clared in the ninth verse of the twenty-fourth chapter of Eccle- siasticus. In fact, Bellarmin has represented Basil | as quoting it in the fifth book against Eunomius, from Ecclesiasticus, and

* Quare 22 Libri Divinitius inspirati ? Respondeo, quoniam in numerorum loco, &c. Neque enim ignorandum est quod V. T. libri (ut Hebraei tradunt) viginti et duo, quibus aequalis est numerus Elementorum Hebraeorum, non abs re sint ut enim 22 Literae introductio ad sapientiam, etc., ita ad sapientiam Dei, et rerum notitiam fundamentum sunt et Introductio Libri Scripturae duo et vi- ginti.— Philoc. c. 3, as quoted by Cosin.

t Ana^ £i/ nnauis rats ypatpats eiprjrai' K.vpios cktuc jie. S Bas. Adv. Eunom.

X Bellar. de Ver. Dei. lib. i. c. 14.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 307

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.

V. 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 contrary, he himself affirms in his homilies on Genesis,* that *' all the inspired books of the Old Testament were originally written in the Hebrew tongue." How many of those in dispute were written in this language ? Again, in another place,f he acknowledges no other books but those which Ezra was said to have collected, and which were subsequently translated by the seventy-two Elders, acknowledged by Christ, and spread by his apostles. But, according to your own account of the matter, Ezra collected only the books which the Jews received. Therefore Chrysos- tom admitted none but the Hebrew canon. If he sometimes quoted Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, or any other books of the Apocrypha, as the word of God, it is evidently in the same loose way, and on the same principle on which these works were ascribed to Solomon or others of the ancient prophets. Their sentiments were approved, and their doctrine supposed to be consistent with Scripture.

VI. In regard to Ambrose, bishop of Milan, all that I shall say is, that the same process of argument by which you would make him canonize the books that Rome acknowledges, will also make him canonize a book which Rome rejects, which, ac- cordins: to Sixtus of Sienna, no father had ever received, and which, according lo Bellarmin, is disfigured with idle fables — the dreams of Rabbins and Tahimdists.

aiiVTtOctucvai^ Kai rivrn nai'TCi an nf^tv aiwojto'SoyriiTatei'. Chrys. in GeneS. Hom. 4. t Ereoio iraXiv av^oi Ojnuarr'* tvcirvcvaev^ wort avrai £Kde<rOai, tm E-ffSpa Xtyo), hat a-iTO X€i\j,av(jjv auyrcOt^vitt Ciroitfrc. Alcra 6e tovto i.yKOfOfinacv ep^rjycvdrjvai avras VTT) rtitv cfJSo^riK fa' rjiijirivcvjiit' evcn'O™ UipeyeviTO o Xpioroj, Sc^^ETat avrai, oi airo- aroXoi cii navrai avras 6taaTretpova!y aquua tiroirirt Kai Oavftara o Xptoroj. Chrys. ttt Hehr. Horn. 8.

308 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

Kis language is just as strong, pointed, and precise, in refer- ence to the fourth book of Esdras, as it is in reference to Tobit, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, or Judith. In his book de Bono Mor- tis, having quoted the thirty-second verse of the seventh chapter of the fourth book of Esdras, Ambrose adds in the next chapter ;* " We do not fear that end due to all, in which Esdras finds the reward of his devotion — God saying to him, &c.," and again, *' Esdras revealed according 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 reve- lation to be communicated to others, and yet not really believe him to be inspired — if his language, in this case, must be under- stood in a subordinate and modified sense, why not understand him in the same way when he applies a similar phraseology to the other books of the Apocrypha ? Ambrose, if strictly inter- preted, 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 t that Solomon was the author of only three books, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Canticles.

VII. It is unnecessary to dwell upon your citations from Paulinus of Nola, as they involve only the same argument which has been so frequently refuted, and the testimony of Augustine, your last witness, has been abundantly considered already.

* Non vereamur ilium debitum omnibus finem, in quo Esdras remunera- tionem suae devotionis invenit, dicente ei Domino. Quis utique prior, Esdras, an Plato ? nam Paulus Egdrae,non Platonis sequuius est dicta. Esdrae revela- vit secundum collatam in se revelationem, justos futuros cum^risto, futures et cum Sanctis.

t Unde et Salomonis tres libri ex plurimis videntur electi : Ecclesiastes de naturalibus, Cantica Canticorum de mysticis, Proverbia de moralibus. In Ps. xxxvi. pr. t. i. p. 777. Quid etiam trei^iteri Sakmonis, unus de Pioverbiis alius Ecclesiastes, tertius de Canticis Canticorum, nisi trinee liujus ostendunt nobis Sapientiae sanctum Salomonem fuisse solertem ? — In Lucam, pr. t. i. p 1262, A. \ ■ ■ ■

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 309

It now remains to sum up the result of this whole investiga- tion. You undertook to prove that Rome was not guilty of arro- gance 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 four arguments, which I shall collect in the syllogistic form.

1. The first was, Whatsoever Rome, being infallible, de- clares to be inspired, must be inspired.

Rome declares that the Apocrypha are so.

Therefore, the Apocrypha must be inspired.

In a series of Essays I completely and triumphantly refuted the major, so that this argument, which was the key-stone of the arch, fell to the ground.

2. Your second was. Whatsoever books Christ and his apos- tles quoted, must 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 contra- dicted by notorious facts.

4. Your fourth and last was, Whatever the Fathers have quoted as Scripture, Divine Scripture, &:.c., 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.

310 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

Letter XIX

The real Testimony of the Primitive Church.— The Canons of Melito, Origen, Athanasius, Hilary, Cyril, Gregory Naz., Jerome, Ruffinus, Council of Laodicea.

Having now shown that Rome has utterly failed in producing a particle of proof in favor of her adulterated canon, I proceed to vindicate my original assertion, that, for four centuries, the unbroken testimony of the Christian church is against the inspi- ration 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 divine Rule of Faith, but there is a large amount of clear, positive, and satisfactory evidence that no such event could possi- bly have taken place.

The testimony of the primitive church presents itself to us under two aspects : It is either negative, consisting in the ex- clusion of the disputed books from professed catalogues of Scrip- ture ; 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 ad- duce 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 reputation which this good man enjoyed, that Polycrates, 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 lis- tened to the divine instructions of John, though not to be re- ceived as authority, are certainly evidence of a very high charac- ter. 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 One- simus, which he professes to have made with the utmost accuracy,

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 311

after a full investigation of the subject. I shall suffer him to speak for himself. '* Melito sends greeting to his brother Onesi- mus. Since in thy zeal for the word, thou hast often desired to have selections from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour and the whole of our faith, and hast also wished to ob- tain an exact statement of the ancient books, how many they were in number, and what was their arrangement, I took pains to effect this, understanding thy zeal for the faith, 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, havino-come to the East and arrived at the place where these things were preached and done, and having accurately learned the books of the Old Testatnent, 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 Deuteronomy : Joshua, son of Nun, Judges, Ruth : four books of kings, two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs 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 pro- phets in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra, from which I have made selections, distributinor them into six books."*

This testimony, you inform us,t " corroborates the fact,"

\oyov j^pioftevoi ycvETQai aoi ex^oyac, ck t€ rov vojxov kui tcov Trpod>r)Tiov tteoi tov crcjTtjpos Kai TTuarii rrji m<TTeii)i rj^otv. en 6e Kat utiOciv rrjv roiv ira\ai(ov Pi/SXioiv tl3ovXriQr}i axpi- f3ciav, voaa tov apiOfjov Kai citna rr/v ra^tv eicv, canovSuaa to TOiavTo npa^ai eTTiaTaiie- voi (TOP TO ffirovSmov trepi tt\v ttkitiv^ Kai <piXt)iiaOci vepi top Xuyop. oti tc uaXiOTa napToip TToQu, Ti>t Ttpos Ocov Tavra TrpuKpiPCiij nepi tt); aioiviov aioTrjpiui ayMi/t^oitspos' apcXdojv ovv CIS Ttjv epaTo\r]v, kui ecoi tov tokov ycvo^icpoi' epOa £Kf]pv\Ori Kai cnpayOrj^ Kat axpi0(x)f jiaQ(jiv Ta ttjj iraXatai SinOrjKtji fitfiXta vnoTa^ug enejixpa aof up coti Ta ovoua- ra' Mwii<T£cJs itcptc ' rcpcai^^ K^oSos, A.£vtTtK0Vy A.pi6fi0P, Ac'JTepovoixiov • Itjtrovs J>uv»j, }\.piTai, PovO' Brto-iXetcjj/ Tcaaapoy HapaXeiiroficvcjv 6vo. "^aXficop Aa/Stf^ yio\o- fiO)VOi Ylapoi^iai^ r\ kcli lIo(^«rt, ^KKXif^iaaTt^i, A.afia A-cri/arcoPy lu}(3' JJpotpnruiv, Heraiou, lepcfiiov' TWP Su)6cKa cp ftopoi3il3X'.y, xXunrjX, ir.^eK(r]\, Ka(]pai, c^ wp kui cxXoyioi tiroit)- cajinPy £«s CKfiifiXia (JjeAcji/. Melito's Letter to Oiiesimus, Euseb. B. iv. c. 26.

t "His testimony corroborates the fact, otherwise clearly proven, that at his day the practice of the Christian world was at variance with the opinion which he advanced." — A. P. F., Lett. xiii.

312 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

that in the age of Melito, " the practice of the Christian world was at variance with the opinion which he advanced." In other words, I understand you to assert, that the Epistle itself furnishes satisfactory proof, that at the period in which it was written, a different canon of the Old Testament was generally received from that which is presented in it. But, sir, in what part of the letter can this corroborating evidence be found ? Melito evidently writes with the confidence of a man who knew that 'he was pos- sessed of the truth. He professes to give an exact statement of the names, number, and arrangement of the sacred books, and no- where does he drop the most distant hint that opposing senti- ments were held upon the subject, or that any other works had ever been commended by any portion of Christendom as entitled to equal veneration with those which he had enumerated. How then does ** his testimony corroborate the fact, that at his day the practice of the Christian world was different from the opinion which he advanced ?" Will the reader believe it ?* Because he investigated the subject and formed his conclusion from person- al examination, it is confidently inferred that the whole matter must previously have been involved in uncertainty or doubt. Sir, you have forgotten your chronology. That was an age of private judgment : the Son of Perdition had not then enslaved the understandings of men. Priestly authority was not received as a substitute for light, and the mere dicta of ghostly confessors were not regarded as the oracles of God. The easy art of be- lieving by proxy, which must always result in personal damna- tion, was then wholly unknown. Tremblingly alive to the im- portance of truth, and deeply impressed with the dangers of de- lusion, the faithful of that day felt the responsibility that rested upon them to " try the spirits, to prove all things, and hold fast that which was good." Hence Melito determined to be guided

* " Melito, according to his own statement, came to the conclusion set forth in his letter, after he had travelled into Palestine, and had there investigated the question. From this we are forced to infer, that he had not been taught in his youth at Sardis, and that it had not been made known to him, even in his ma- turer 3'ears, while he was a priest, and perhaps the Bishop of that church. It was precisely by his inquiries in Judea that he was led to the opinion wluch he finally adopted." — A. P. F., Lett. xiii.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND IlEFUTED. 313

only by evidence ; and, acting in obedience to the apostolic in- junction, wisely resolved to investigate the subject, and to form his opinions upon accurate research. He accordingly visits the country whence the Gospel had sprung, traverses the region where Jesus had labored, converses with the churches in which apostles had taught, and ascertained tlie books on which they were relying for the words of life.

As you are perfectly confident, however, that the testimony of Melito, commended as it is by his diligence and care, must be worthless because it is unfavorable to the interests of Rome, you invent three hypotheses,* by means of one of which you hope to obviate its natural result. It was either his object, accordino- to you, to publish the canon of the churches in Palestine, or to give that of the Jewish Synagogue, or to express his own private opinion that Christians should receive no other books of the Old Testament but those which were acknowledged by the Jews. If mere conjecture is to settle the matter, it is just as easy to make a fourth supposition ; that his real design was to compare the faith of Asia and Palestine, and to give the canon of the Chris- tian world, so far as he was able to ascertain what it was. Let us, however, test the value of your three evasions.

1. If it were the object of Melito to state the books which the churches of Palestine believed to be inspired, we may re- gard it as settled that they received none but those which are contained in his list. Then, of course, they rejected the Apoc- rypha. Now these churches were planted by the hands of the Apostles, they were the first fruits of the Christian ministry, and here, if any where, we should expect to find an accurate know- ledge of the books which the Apostles had prescribed as the rule of faith. Strange, very strange, if within sixty years after the last of the sacred college had fallen asleep, so little regard was paid to their instructions in the scene of their earliest labors, that six entire works, together with divers fragments of others,

* " If on the other hand, Melito, disregarding the practice of the church, even in Palestine, and, seduced by peculiar views on the authority and sanctions of the Jewish canon, as opposed to the usage of the church, intended in his letter to give us the Books contained in the Jewish canon, manifestly his testimony does not touch the point before ns at all." — A. P. F., Lett. xiii.

314 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

had been ruthlessly torn from the inspired volume, as delivered to these churches by their venerable founders ! To say, as you have done, * that the Apostles, in tenderness to their early pre- judices, permitted the Hebrew Christians to retain the canon of the Jewish church, to the exclusion of the Apocrypha, is to con- tradict what you have elsewhere said, that the Jews themselves entertained a profound respect for the disputed books, and would have admitted them into their sacred library, if they had had the authority of a prophet. These Jewish prejudices, consequently, are a desperate expedient, invented solely for the purpose of re- conciling the notorious faith of the churches in Judea, with what Rome chooses to represent as Apostolic teaching. You tell us in one breath that the Apostles delivered the Apocrypha to the primitive Christians as inspired, and then in the very next, declare that they did not deliver them to the churches in Judea, because the stiff-necked children of Abraham would not receive them. But when the question was, Did the Jewish Church re- ject the Apocrypha, from the sacred canon, we were then in- formed that this was not the case — that it was a great admirer of the contested books, and would cheerfully have received them, if it had been commissioned by a proper tribunal. It is cer- tainly not a little singular that the Jews should be so warmly at- tatched to the books as to be willing to canonize them upon suf- ficient authority, and yet so violently prejudiced against them, that the whole College of Apostles could not subdue their oppo- sition. I have no knack at explaining riddles, and must there- fore leave these high mysteries to those who can swallow tran- substantiation. In the meantime I may be permitted to remark that the Apostles were not in the habit of surrendering truth to prejudice ; and if the churches of Palestine knew nothing of their having endorsed the Apocrypha as inspired, the presump- tion is irresistible, that no such thing ever took place. What

* " The fact that a small portion of the universal church, converts from Ju- daism, should cling to the observances of those ancestors whom they revered, and whom every hill and dale recalled to their minds, does not condemn other churches which, untrammelled by any such restrictions, unswayed by any such motives, walked boldly under the guidance of the Apostles." — A. P. P., Lett.

xiii APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 315

they preached to the Gentiles, they preached first to the Jews ; and as to all the world they had proclaimed one Lord and one baptism, so they had likewise proclaimed only one faith.

2. Your second hypothesis, that Melito intended to state the canon of the Jewish synagogue, and not of the Christian church- es, is contradicted by his own words. How could the zeal ©f Onesimus in the faith be an inducement to give him only'a part of its standard; and how would he be assisted in acquirincr knowledge, by being led into serious error ? Onesimus desired an exact statement of the Books of the Old Testament. But ac- cording to you, Melito furnishes him only with those books which the Jews received, and consequently omitted an important por- tion of the whole Old Testament. Yet Melito himself says that he had fully complied with the request of his friend. So that either your supposition must be false, or the good Bishop, who, Polycrates says, was guided in all things by the Holy Ghost, was guilty of a falsehood.

3. Your third hypothesis, that he only intended to express his private opinion in opposition to the prevailing practice of the church, as to the books which ought to be received, hardly de- serves a serious notice. That a man should travel from Sardis to Jerusalem, to ascertain the documents which the Apostolic churches held to be inspired; then give the result of his inqui- ries with the strongest expression of confidence, when his con elusions were notoriously at variance with the faith of the chur- ches on which he had relied — in other words, that he should en- tertain so much respect for the opinion of the Hebrew and East- ern churches, as to make a long journey for the purpose of con- sulting them, and after all pay no attention to their opinions at all, is a proposition too monstrous to be deliberately maintained. I do not deny that Melito has given us his private opinion, but I do deny that he has given an opinion peculiar to himself His own statement is certainly worthy of credit — his object was to give, (and he professes to have done it,) an exact account of the names, number, and arrangement of the books of the Old Testa- ment. He fabricated no new canon for himself, but recorded the books, and all the books, which the churches of the East believed to be inspired. From Jerusalem to Sardis, consequent-

316 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

ly, in all the churches planted by Apostles, there was but one voice, about the middle of the second century, as to the docu- ments which compose the Old Testament ; and that voice which may almost be regarded as a distant echo of the preaching of the twelve, condemns the canon of Trent.

As to the objection that Melito has omitted the Book of Es- ther, I reply in the words of Eichhorn :* " It is true," says he, " that in this catalogue Nehemiah and Esther are not mentioned ; but whoever reads the passage and understands it, will here dis- cover both of them. Melito here arranges the books of the Old Testament manifestly according to the time in which they were written, or in which the facts which they record, occurred. Hence he places Ruth after the book of Judges, Daniel and Ezekiel towards the end of his catalogue, and Ezra last of all, because he wrote after the Babylonian captivity ; and accordingly as he comprehended the Books of Samuel and Kings under the general appellation Books of Kings, because they related to the history of the Hebrew kingdom from Saul to Zedekiah, or until the Babylonian captivity, in the same manner he appears to com- prise under the name of Ezra all historical books, the subjects of which occur in the times subsequent to the Babylonian captivity. As it is very common to include Ezra and Nehemiah in one book, why might not even Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther, also have been regarded as a whole? If we add to this conjecture, that Nehemiah and Esther, according to Josephus, must have been parts of the canon, and that Fathers of authority, such as Origen and Jerome, expressly ennmerate both in it, no impartial inqui- rer can well doubt that even Melito does not reject from the canon of the Old Testament the two books mentioned."

To this it may be added that, according to any of your three hypotheses which have just been considered, Esther must have been included. If Melito intended to state the canon of the Hebrew Christians, and that, as you have said, coincided with the canon of the Jewish church, this book was confessedly a part. It was also acknowledged by the Jewish Synagogue, and any pri-

* Vide Eich. Einleit. xli.

t Vide Cosin, Scholast. Hist. Can. pp. .33.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 317

vate opinions in opposition to the practice of the Christian church, which Melito might have been induced to form from his intercourse with the Jews, could not have led him to reject its authority. Your conjecture that he forgot to mention it, is, when we consider his pretensions to accuracy, wholly incredible. As therefore it must have been included, the account which Eichhorn has given of the matter is probably the true explanation. In this opinion he is sustained by Cosin, a man as learned as himself.

II. The next writer to whom I shall appeal, and you have pro- nounced his eulogy, is Origen. Eusebius says of him, that, " in expounding the first Psalm, he has given a catalogue of the sa- cred Books in the Old Testament, writing as follows :* " Let it not be unknown that the canonical books, as the Hebrews trans- mit them, are twenty-two; for such is the number of letters among them." A little further on, he adds, " These are the twenty-two books of the Hebrews : the Book called Genesis with us, but among the Hebrews, from the beginning of the Book, Bereshith, which means, In the Beginning : Exodus, Valmoth, that is. These are the Names: Leviticus, Vaikra, And he Called : Numbers, Ammisphekodeum : Deuteronomy, Ellahhaddebarim, These are the Words : Jesus, the Son of Nave : Joshua Ben Nun : Judges, Ruth, with them united in one book called So-

* Tov ficv Toiye irpuyTov £^i)yov^£vos "^a^fiCJVj CKOeatv ircitoir^Tai (12jO()fi/ijj) tov TUiV U0(j}v ypa<^u)v rrn naXaiui 6iaOr]Krii KaraXoyov, wJe rjojj ypaipiov Kara Xe^iv' ovk ayvor)T£ov (5' tivai rai ev6ia6r)Kovs PifiXovi, ojf lE^paioi irapa6t6oaaiv, 6vo kui cikoci' oaos 0 apiO^ioq roj/ trapa avroig aDv^eiwv cariv' £cra ftera riva, errKpcptt XcyMv. eiai 6c at ciKoai 6vo (Si0Xoi Ka8' E/Spaiovg atSe' t) trapa r/^wj/ Yevcaii tniytypa^tftcvr], napa 6e E/?/oato<j aiTO T->jf ap^rif TT]i /3i/3Xov i3pr)ai0,oirtp eariv cv ap)(^Ti' K^o<5oj, ovaXeofKod, onep eari ravra ra ovu^ara' A-cvitikov, ovitpi, kui CKaXzoif' A.piQyiOt uiifieaipCKoSetfj ^evTcpovofiioVj cXXe aSSeiiaptfi, ovtoi oi Xoyoi' l»j3-oiij vios NdHfj, Iwavc iScy riovv' Kpirai, Poi)0, Trap' avroii cv cvi acjibertfj. /SaaiXetcji' TTpoyrrjj ^evTcpa, -rap avTOti rv i_m^- ovrjX, 0 QtOKXriTOi' PaaiXcioiv rpiTT), TCTuprrj, ev evi ovajnitXe')(^ AajSiS, orrcp can PaaiXcta Aalh6. HapaXcmoiicvwv irpwrt], Scvrcpa^ zv cvi, ^iPprj aiafti^, oirtp can Xoyoi rjficpdyii' Eff(!paf TTjOwrof KUi Scvrcpog ev vi, E^pa, o can 0otidoi' OtiiXos '^PaX/iw;' ae(f>cp diXXi[ji. SoXo/itoiTof Unpoi^iai /ijaXwO, E/cicXn<T(a(Tr)7S, kojcXcO A.a^a Aff/iarwr, oip aaaipi^. H(7a((zj, Icaaia^ Itp/auf aw Opt^voii Kai tt) cniaroXr} cv cm, Ipiftia. AoKr/X, AavirjX. Ic^CKirj^, Icc^KfjX. Iw/?. Effflijp, EffO^jp. c^io 6c TOVTiov can ra Ma/fAn/^adKO, azcp crriyfy-

patrrat JlapPn^ aap$ave cX. Origen. Can. fr. Euseb. Eccl. Tfist. vi. 25.

318 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

phetim : Kings, first and second, with them, in one called Sam- uel, the Called of God : the third and fourth of Kings, in one book, Vahammelech Dabid, that is, the Kingdom of David : the first and second of Chronicles, in one book called, Dibre Hia- mim, that is, the Records of Days : the first and second of Esdras, in one book, called Ezra, that is The Assistant: the Book of Psalms, Sopher Tehillim : the Proverbs of Solomon, Misloth : Ecclesiastes, Koheleth : the Song of Songs, Sir Hasirim : Esaias, Jesair : Jeremiah with the Lamentations and his Epistle, in one volume, Jeremiah : Daniel, Daniel : Ezekiel, lesekell : Job, Job : Esther, Esther : beside these, there are also the Maccabees, which are inscribed Sarbeth Sarbaneel." In this catalogue the book of the twelve minor Prophets is omitted through a mistake of the transcriber. It is supplied both by Nicephorus and Ruffinus. By the Epistle of Jeremiah we are not to understand the apocry- phal letter, for the Jews never received that 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 sub- ject, he has given, according to Eusebius, " the hooks in the Sa- cred 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 ihe Divine in- spiration of the story of Susannah, but vindicates it simply as a historical narrative from the charge of being a fabulous impos- ture. Africanus had asserted the book to be a fiction, grossly spurious, and utterly unworthy of credit. It was from this accu- sation that Origen defended it, and showed conclusively that some of the reasoning which 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 imputa-

* Vide Opera Origen, vol, i. pp. 10, seq.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 319

lion of having given to her children fables for truth. Such books were recommended to the faithful, as valuable helps to their per- sonal improvement. This was evidently done upon the suppo- sition that the facts which they contained were worthy of credit ; and as this was, perhaps, the general belief, in which Africanus could not concur, Origen merely intended to prove that it was not at least without some foundation.

It is true that this Father has freely quoted the Apocryphal books under the same titles which are usually bestowed on the canonical Scriptures. So also has he quoted in the same way the spurious prophecy of Enoch, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, and the Gospel according to the Hebrews. He has even gone so far, in reference to the 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 heavenly and holy impulses under which, as he conceived, the work had been written. From incidental ex- pressions of this sort, which are often nothing but terms of re- spect, 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 pro- fessedly numbered and arranged.

HI. I shall now give the canon of Athanasius, which may be found in his Festal Epistle. t " For I fear," says he, " lest some

* Puto tamen,quod Hernias ista sit scriptor libelli illius, qui Pastor appella- tur: quje scriptura valdc mihi utilis videlur, et ut puto, divinitus inspirata. — Explan. Horn. xvi. 14.

t ^irciirjncp rdrij circ)^tipr)aav avara^aaOai cavrotf ra ^cyoficva AiroKpvipa xai Enifii- ^ai ravra rrf deoTtvevaTiy ypaiprj ncoi r/f ci:\r}q3<popr\')ficv , KaOtjJi napcioaav rati irarpaatv 01 air ^D(_1i avTOTTTai teat vrrr)pcrai ytvoficvoi rov \oyov' e6o^c KUfdOi nporpairevri irapa yvr)cn(i}ira6e\(piov koi fiaOovrt avcjdev, £^r/f CKQccOai ra \^ a v nv i k o ^ eva Kai napaSoOcvra iriGTCvOcvra tc Oeia eivai fit0\ia' iva CKOffroi, et fuv rjTTarriOr], Karayv('> to)v ir\avT](TavTU)v' 0 Se Kodapof Siajieivai \aiprj Tr(t\n> VTrnfiifti'rtaKOjiei'nq. V.ti toivvv rrji ^icv iraKatai iiaOt)-

320 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

few of the weaker sort should be seduced from their simplicity and purity, by the cunning of some men, and at last be led to make use of other books called Apocryphal, being deceived by the similarity of their names, which are like those of the true books. I therefore entreat you to forbear, if I write to remind you of what you already know, because it is necessary and profitable to the church. Now, while I am about to remind you of these things, to excuse my undertaking, I will make use of the ex- ample of Luke the Evangelist, saying also myself — ' Forasmuch as some have taken in hand to set forth writings called Apocry- phal, and to write them with the God-inspired Scripture in which we have full confidence, as they, who from the first were eye- witnesses and ministers of the word, delivered them to the Fathers, it has seemed good to me, after consulting with the true brethren, and inquiring from the beginning, to set forth those books which are canonical, which have been handed down to us, and are believed to be Divine, so that every one who has been deceived may condemn his deceivers, and that he who re- mains pure may rejoice when again put in remembrance of these. All the books of the Old Testament are two and twenty in number ; for, as I have heard, that is the order and number of the Hebrew letters. To name them, they are as follows : the first Genesis, the next Exodus, then Leviticus, after that the Numbers, and then Deuteronomy ; after that Ruth ; and again, the next in order, are the four books of the Kingdoms, of these the first and second are reckoned one book, and, in like manner, the third and fourth are one book ; after them the first and

ra

Kris ^ipXia TOi apiOjir') ra iravra ^iKoai6vo. Toaavra yap, wj TjfODcra, Kai CTOi'veia ra trap' l^Ppaiois eivai TrapaieSarai. rr] 6e ra^ai kui tco ovo^ari eariv CKaarov ourwj' T{.0(jiTov Y'tvs.cns, eira E|oJoj, eira A.eviTiKov, Kai ficra tovto ApiOfjioi, Kai \ot- ■nov T) AevTCOovofiioV e^rjg Se tovtois eariv o Iijtod tov Nod/;, kui Kptrai, Kat fiera TOVTU r) Povd. Kai ira^ii/ c^rjs (iaaCXeioiv rccaaoa (3i$\ia' Kai tovtojv to jxef irpwrov Kai Sevteoov CIS tv PiPXiov apiQjxei' to 6e toitov kui TtTapTov ojxokjJS £'f f- Mera 6e TUVTU YlaoaXenroiiepa a' Kai /?' ojioicjs £'f cv (ii0\iov tva^iv apid^iov^eva Eira Eo-Joaj a Kai /?' ouoioiS £is £v. jVIcra Se Tdvra l3i(3\os ^aApcjv, Kai e^ris TLapoifiiai. Eiira EK/cA»7(TtaoT»7f Kai A.a^ia A-Cfiarov. Tlpos tovtois £<^ri Kai Iw/?, Kai Xoittov Y\po<pr)Tai oi fitv ScoScKa £is £v (3iP\iov apiOfJiovnevoi. Etra Haaias, lepeixias Kai aw avTCJ Bapov^^ Oprivoi, Kai EtjotoX>7, Kai jxet^ avTov E^£»ct/jX Kai Aavir^'X. A^pi tovtov ra rns naXaiag StadrjKris lararai. Athanas. 0pp. tom. ii. p. 38.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 321

second of the Remains, or Chronicles, are in like manner ac- counted one book ; then the first and second of Esdras, also reck- oned one book ; after them the book of the Psalms ; then the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; beside these there is Job, and at length the Prophets ; the twelve are reck- oned one book; then Isaiah and Jeremiah, and with liim, Baruch, the Lamentations, the Epistle ; and after them Ezekiel and Daniel. Thus far the books of the Old Testament.'" Hav- ing given the Canon of the New Testament, he proceeds : ** For the sake of greater accuracy, I will add — and the addition is ne- cessary— that there are also other books, beside these, not in- deed admitted into the canon, but ordained by the Fathers to be read by such as have recently come over to us, and who wish to receive instruction in the doctrine of piety — the Wisdom of Solo- mon, the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, the Doctrine of the Apostles, as it is called, and the Shepherd."

To the same purpose is the account which is given in the Synopsis of Scripture, which is usually quoted under the name of Athanasius.'* " All the Scripture of us Christians is divinely inspired. It contains not indefinite, but rather determined and canonized books. These belong to the Old Testament." Then follows the same enumeration which has just been extracted from the Paschal Epistle. It is afterwards added : " But beside these, there are other books of the same Old Testament, not cauo?iical, but only read by (or to) the Catechumens. Such are the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, Esther, Judith, and Tobit. These are not canonical."

The canonical book of Esther, though not particularly num- bered in these catalogues, is included under the general name of Ezra. The additions to it, however, are expressly mentioned

* ITiiffit yp ifij tijuuv ^nirTTiav(-)v Oc >Tt>ci'(TTOi fffTjr, ovk aopicra tlf, aWa fta\^ov oipKTiteva Kai KCKavovKT^uva c^st ra /hpXta, Kat £oti rm ftev TtaXaiai SiaOrfKiji ravra. Kktos 6c r-jVTcjv ei7t -rraXiv crepa fti^SXia Ttjs avriji naXaias StaOrj^cris. ov Kavovi^ofieva ftev. avayivoxTKOfitva 6e fiovov roif xarrj^oi'iisvoii ravrai ' St)(^ja SoAo/iwi'TOf, ^otpia I/?<row viov ^ipa-^, KcOrio' loujifl, Ta>.?ir. 'CoTavra Ktii ra fit} Kavovi^o^ieva. Ttra fievroi 7Uiv naXaiMv ctnri'ca<rt Kdvovt^ccrdm Tran V.jipmoiq Kai Tr)v -Kfffl/jp' Kat rqv ficv Pov0, ^era roM/ Kf/jrw*/ evoviicir}'-', cii ev liiliXiov apiOiiticOm m^' os \\aOt}p eii ercpov ev. koi ouroi naXiv eii eiKoai Svo (TVfjir'SrjpdVcOat tov apif)nov ro)i' Karuju^ofuvui' Ttapa aoroij 0t/S\iojv — Athan. 0pp. ii. p. 126, seq.

15

322 ROMANIST ARGUMENTiS FOR THE

and repudiated. For the Esther which is proscribed by name, is not the book which the Jews received, but the one which opens with the dream of Mordecai. In this Synopsis, Athana- sius not only gives a list of the books, but inserts the sentence with which each of them begins, in order that they might be easily identified, and he expressly tells us that the Esther which he means, commences in the manner which has just been speci- fied. We are, therefore, at no loss to determine what he in- tended to condemn and repudiate 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 hook of Jeremiah. " For Baruch's name," says Bishop Cosin,* " is famous in Jeremy, whose disciple and scribe he was, 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 rela- tions a great part of the book may be attributed to them both. And very probable it is, that for this reason the Fathers that fol- lowed Origen, did not only, after his example, join the Lamenta- tions and the Epistle to Jeremy, but the name of Baruch be- sides ; whereby they intended nothing else (as by keeping them- selves precisely to the number of twenty-two books only is clear) than what was inserted concerning Baruch in the book of Jere- my itself "t

IV. Hilary, bishop of Poitiers in France, thus enumerates the

'* Vide Cosin. Scholast. Hist. pp. 59.

t Et ea causa est, ut in viginti duos libros lex Testaraenti veteiis deputc- tur, vit cum literatum numero convenirent. Qui ita secundum traditiones ve- terum deputantur, ut Mosis sint libri quinque ; Jesu Naue sextus ; .Tudicum et Ruth Septimus ; primus et secundus Regnorum in octavum, tertius et quartusin nonum ; Paraiipomenon duo in decimum sint, sermones dieium. Esdiae in undecimum ; Liber Psalmorumin duodecimum ; Salomonis Proverbia ; Ecclesi- astes; Canticum Canticorum in tertium decimum, et quartum decimum, et quintum decimum ; duodecim auteni Prophetae in sextum decimum ; Esaias deinde et Jeremias cum Lamentatione et Epistola ; sed et Daniel, et Ezechiel, et Job, et Hester, viginti et duum librorura numerum consumment. Quibus- dam autem visum est, additis Tobia et Judith viginti qaatuor libros secundum numerum Graecarum literarum connumerare. — Tlilari. Prologo in Psalmos, n. XV. p. m. 9.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 323

books of the Old Testament, which he assures us, according to the tradition of the ancients, amounted to tvventj-two. " Five of Moses; Joshua the son of Nun, the sixth; Judges and Ruth, the seventh; first and second Kings, the eighth ; third and fourth Kings, the ninth ; two books of Chronicles, the tenth ; Ezra, the eleventh ; Psalms, the twelfth ; Ecclesiastes and Canticles, the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth; the Twelve Prophets, the sixteenth ; then Isaiah, and Jeremiah together with his Lamen- tations and his Epistle : Daniel, and Ezekiel, and Job, and Esther make up the full number of twenty-two books."

V. 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 passage:*' ** Learn diligently from the Church what are the books of the Old Testament, and what of the New, 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 Di- vine Scriptures, 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 bool^of Judges with Ruth which is numbered the seventh : then follow other historical books, the first and second

* fS>i\o[ta6o)i eiriyvoQi napa rrji tvffXrjrrjaj, TToiai fiev ciaiv ai Tr]g rraXaias 6iaBr)Kr]i l3i,3\otj TToiai 6c rrjs Kaivrii kui ^loi firiSev tcov airoKpv<poiv avayivwa/cc. O yap ra irapa Tra(nv o^oXoyovfieva fir) eiSo)?^ ti nepi ra a^icpi/JaWofieva TaXannopeii ^tOTriv • Arayj- yvioaxe raj Ociai yP'^'l"^^) '""'J ctKoci ovo 3ij3\ovs rrii rraXaiai StaOrjKTfs^ ras imo rwv c(i6oiiT}<nvTa 6vo cpjirjvevrMv epjirivevOcKTas . ■ • tov vofiov fuv yap eiatv ai Majtrecof Trpco- rai nzvTC (iift\oi . . . c^m 6e, lijtrovs uioj Navn, xai rwv Kpirwi' ^ttTa rm Povd PifiXi- ov tP6oyiOv aoidftovjjcvctf, noi/ Se Xotiriov KTTopiKwv Pi/3\i(0i'. irpiorri Kai Sevrepa tcov BafftXciwj' /iia Trap^ E/?pa(()«s £<7ti Pi3\oi • fiia 6c kui n Tpirrj kui rj Tcraprrj • o^ioicjs 6c irao^ uvroti Kai tojv \lapa\cnrofiCi'(x)v r] np^rr] kui rj 6evTcpa ftta rvy^nvci ftiPXoi^ xai TOV E(7(5pa ri irp'jirn xai ri 6evTcpa fiia XeXoytorai. C(.o6tKaTri /SiPXog rj Ko-flz/p. Kaj ra jicv laTOpiKU Tavra. Tn 6c aroi^rjpa rvyy^avci ttcvth} ' Iw/?, Kai j3i8Xos ^Va\fKOv, koi Hapot- utat, KUi KfcX/jcriaorrys , xat A-n^ta A.a^iaT(jiv^CTtraKai6cKaT0v (iil3\iov. Kttj 6c rovroti ra irpo'Jin^^xa TTEVTC ' TMi' 6'o6c>ca npotprirojv [tia /?«jt?Xof, Kai llsaiov fiin, kui Jepcftiov ficra Bap'JUY xai Qpt\vi>iv xai cniffroXrii ' cirti It^evcjX • xni 17 rov AavttjX cixoarn 6cvripa

0ifi>.ni rns TaX. 6ia0. Cyril. Hierosul. Cntrchcs. iv. .33-3n, pp. G7-69, ed. Tullei.

324 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

of the Kingdoms (one book according to the Hebrews) : the third and fourth are also one book : the first and second of the Chroni- cles are, in like manner, reckoned as one book by them : the first and second of Ezra are counted as one book. The twelfth is Es- ther. These are the historical books. The books written in verse are five. Job and the book of Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs : making the seventeenth book. After these are the five prophetical books, one of the twelve Prophets, one of Isaiah, one of Jeremiah, with Baruch, Lamentations and an Epistle: then Ezekiel, and the book of Daniel the twenty-second book of the Old Testament."

V VI. In the writings of Epiphanius we have no less than three catalogues of the books of the Old Testament, which, as they are all essentially the same, I shall trouble the reader with only one.* " Twenty-seven books acknowledged and received into the Old Testament, which, according to the letters of the Hebrew alpha- bet are counted as twenty-two, have been interpreted. For there

* Et/coffi Errra (ii(i\oi ai f>/]Tai /cat evSiaSsToi., eiKoai Se kui 6vo Kara rrjv rov AXrfiti- 0r]TOV nap' ^(Spaioii arot^eicjcjiv upidjiovficvai ripnr]v£vdrj(7av. Eivoo-t yap Kai 6vo e^ovai OTOi vetcof vorifxaTa. irevrt Se etaiv e^ avrcxiv 6nT\ovneva. to yap K.a9 eari SittXovv, koi TO Mev, Kai TO NoD)', Kai TO $j, Kai TO 7^a^,t. Aio Kai ai Pi0\ui Kara tovtov tov Tpo- TTov EiKoai Svo ^uv apiQ^iovvTai. CiKoaitnTa 6s cvptcTKOVTai. 6ia to ttevte £^ avTcov Snr^ovOai. TiVvanTCrai yap rj Povd TOig KjOtratf. Kai apid^itiTai nap' K/3paiois jua Pi/EXoi. Tivvair- T£Tai T) irpwTri twv TS.apa\enroyievoiv tt) Sevrspa, Kai Xeye-ai piia jSif^Xog. HvvanreTai r) npoiTT) TCJV Bao-jXEtwi/ Tt] SeVTcpa, Kai Asyfrai [iia PiPXos- HvvarrTETai >/ TpiTrj ttj Terap- TT}, Kai "^Eyerai jxia (Si(3\oq. Ovrwj yovv svyKEivTai ai (5il3\oi ev IlEVTaTEV^ots TErapai. Kai [xEvovaiv uXAa Svo vaTspovaai' wf ttvai Tai Ei'SiadsTovi (iiff'Kovi ovTcoi. TIevte jiEV

VOUlKaS, VevEITIV, JL^oSoP, A.EVITIK0V, ApidflOVS, AEVTEpOVOHlOV. aVTT] Y) Tl.EVTaTEX)-^OS Kai

n No/i(j0£(Ttrt. Hevte yap crriy^^np^ti- 1 tjv Iw/? 0iP\os. Eira to '^yaXTripiov^ Tlapoifiiai SoXopwi/TOj, EKK\r](Tia(7Tr]i, A-d^ia Ktr^iaToiv. Ktra aWt] Tl.EVTnTEV^oi ra Ka\oVjiEva Ypa(f)Eia,-apa Tiai 6e A.yioypa^a '\Eyoj.i£va^ aTivaEcrTiv ovTWi' \riGov tov Navrj Pi^Xos- JvpiTWV [i£ra Trjs rovd. JlapaXsiiroiiEvcov TrpwTri fxETa Trjg 6£VT£pai, Baa-i^Eiov -rrpcjTri [xetu Trii TETaprrjg. avrr) TpiTt) VLEVTarEvy^oi. AXKri Yi£vTaT£V)^os to Aoi6£KaTTpo(priTOv , JHca- <aj, l£jO£jU£aj, Ic^e/ci/jX. Aavir]\ Kaj avTi) r) Jlpot^T]TiKr] YiEVTaTEVxoi- Y^^isivav 6e aWai Svo, aiTivES £i<n TOV KaSpa fiia Kai avrn'Xoyi^o[jLEvri^ Kai ttXX/? 0i0Xos, r] ttis Kadnp Ka\£i- rai. E,n\rjp(x}dr](Tav ovv ai eikoctiSvo Pi0\oi KaTa tov apiQjxov tcjv eikogiSvo otoi^eioji/ nap' K^paiois. At yap cTi^rtpEii Svo 0il3\oi, tjte tov TioXohcovtos j; JIavapETOS \Eyo- j-iEVT], Kai T] tov Iriaov rov viov 'Lipa^, EKyovov Se tov Itjo-ou, tov Kai ttjv So^iaj/, E0pai(TTi ypaipavTOi r]V o EKyovoi avrov Xrjaovg EpjAriVEvaas eXXr/no-ri EypaxpE, Kai avrai ^prjai^oi yEv Eiffif Kai (x)(p£\i[xoi, aXX' £is apiQuov prjrcov ovk avacpEpovrai. Epipha. de Foilderi- bus et Mens. 3. 4. pp. 161, 162.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 325

are twenty-two letters 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 penta- teuchs, with two other books not included in these divisions. Five pertain to the Law, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deu- teronomy. This is the pentateuch in which the Law is contain- ed. Five are poetical ; Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ec- clesiastes 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. Beside 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 translated by the grandson into Greek, they are profitable and useful, but not counted in the number of the received books." VII. The following is the canon of Gregory Nazianzen.*

* \aropiKat ficv eiai 0t(3\oi SvoKUiocKa nairai,

TlpcoTiiTTri I^eveaiif eiT E^o^oj A-evitikov tc. Effcir' ApiBfioi' cira Aevrepos vofxoi. Eff£(r' Ifjaovs Kat KjOirat ' Pov0 oySorf. H 6' EvvrjTr) SeKarr} re 0i(i\oi npa^eti BaffiX»7w»', Kat TlapaXet^rojievat. lEa^aTov EaSpav f;^£'S. At 6e OTt^rjpai nevTCy oiv irpiOToq y' Ico/?, ErrEira AdViJ ' tira rpeii JloXo^tovTiai, Eif<cXrj(T«a(Tr»jf, A.(Tfia, Kai Utipot/zjiu. Kai rcvd' ofiono^ Trwv/iaroj Trpo((.ffTtKov.

326 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

There are twelve historical books of the most ancient Hebrew wisdom: the first Genesis; then Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; the next Joshua, the Judges, Ruth, the eighth; ninth and tenth the acts of the Kings, and then the Remains and Esdras the last. Then the five books in verse, the first Job, next David, then the three books of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Song, and the Proverbs. The prophetic books are five ; the twelve Prophets are one book, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Jonah, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, all these make one book : the second is Isaiah, then Jeremiah, Eze- kiel and Daniel : which make twenty-two books, according to the number of the Hebrew letters."

Vni. To the same purport is the Poetical canon of Amphi- lochius, the intimate friend of Gregory and Basil, given in a let- ter which he wrote to Zeleuchus, exhorting him to the study of piety and learning.

IX. The testimony of Jerome is clear, pointed and explicit. In his famous Prologus Galeatus, he says:* ''The language of

Mtaj/ fiev Cicriv £f ypa(pr)v oi SoiScKa^ Q,(Tr]£ /c' AjUCjfj Kai ^li^aiag o TpiTOi '

'Naovji T£, A.(il3aK0v^ re, kul 2o0oi/tas, A-yyaios, eira Za^apiui, MaXa;^ta5. Mju jisv oi6£. AsvTepa J' Hcrataj. EneiO' 0 K^rjdtis lepsfiius £K/3pe(j)ovi, Etr' E^s/ci/yX, KQi Aaviri\ov ^apig. Ap)(^aios jxcv £Or]Ka Svo kui eikocl (SijSXovs, Lois Ti^v E/Jpatcoj/ ypajijiaciv avriOETOvs.

Greg. Naz. 0pp. torn. ii. p. 98-

* Viginti et duas literas (says he in the Prologus Galeatus) esse apud He- brasos, Syrorum quoque lingua Chaldaeorum testatur que Hebraeos magna est parte confinis est. Nam et ipsi viginti duo elementa habent eodem sono et diversis characteribus. Porro quinque litterae duplices apud Hebraeos sunt : Caph. mem. nun. pe. sade. Unde et quinque a plerisque libri duplices existi- mantur, Samuel, Melachim, Dibre Hajamim, Esdras, Jeremias cum Cinoth, id est lamentationibus suis. Quomodo igitur viginti duo elementa sunt, per quae scribimus Hebraeice omne quod loquimur, et eorum initiis vox humana compre- henditur : ita viginti duo volumina supputantur, quibus quasi literis et exordiis in Dei doctrina, tenera adhue et lactens viri justi eruditur infantia.

Primus apud eos liber vocatur Beresith, quem nos Genesin dicimus. Secun- dus Veelle Semoth. Tertius Vajicra.id est, Leviticus. Quartus Vajedabber.-

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 327

the Syrians and the Chaldees is a standing proof that there are two and twenty letters amonfr the Hebrews. But among the He- brews five letters are double, Caph, Mem, Nun, Pe, Sade. Hence by most men, five books are considered as double: viz. Samuel, Melachim (Kings), Dibri Hajamin (Chronicles), Ezra, Jeremiah with Kinoth, that is, the Lamentations. Therefore, as there are twenty-two letters, 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, Num-

quem Numeros vocamus. QuintusElle Haddebarim, qui Deuteronomiura prae- notatur. Hi sunt quinque libri Mosis, quos proprie Thora, id est Legem, appellant.

Secundum Propiietarum ordinem faciunt, et incipiunt ab Jesu filio Nave, que apud eos Josui Ben Nun dicitur. Deinde subtexunt Sophetim, id est Judi- cum librum ; et in eundam compingunt Ruth, quia in diebus Judlcum facta ejus narratur historia. Tertius sequitur Samuel, quem nos Regum primum et secundum dicimus. Quartus Melachim, id est Regum qui tertio et quarto Re- gum et volumine contiuetur. Melius que multo est Melachim, id est Regum, quam Melachoth, id est Regnorum dicere. Non enim multarum gentium de- scribit regna, sed unius Israelitici populi, qui tribibus duodecim continetur. Quintus est Esais, sextus Jeremeas, Septimus Ezechiel, octavus liber duodecim Prophetarum, qui apud illos voeatur Thereasee.

Tertius ordo Hagiographa possidet. Et primus liber incipit a Job,secundu3 a David, quem quinque incisionibus et uno Psalmorum volumine comprehend- unt. Tertius est Salomon, tres libros habens, Proverbia, quae iJli Misle, id est Parabolas, appellant. Quartus Ecclesiastes, id est Coheleth. Quintus Canti- cum Canticorum, quem titulo Sir Hassirim praenotant. Sextus est Daniel, sepffmus Dibre Hajammim, id est, verba dierum, quod significantius chronicon Totius divinae historiae possumus appellare, qui liber apud nos Paralipomenon primus et secundus inscribitur. Octavus Esdras, qui et ipse similiter apud Graecos et Latinos in duos libros divisus est. Nonus Esther.

Atque ita fiunt pariter veteris Legis libri viginti duo, id est, Mosis quinque, «t Prophetarum octo, Hagiographorum novem.

Quanquam nonniilli Ruth ot Cinoih inter Hagiographa scribent, et hos libros in suo putent numero supputandos, ac per hoc epse priscaD Legis libros vi- ginti quatuor.

Hie prologus Scripturarura quasi Galeatum principium ojiinibus libris, quos ide Hebrapo vertimus in Latinum, convenire potest : ut scire valeanius, quicquid extra hos est, inter apocrypha esse ponendum. Igitur Sapientia, qua; vulgo Salomonis inscribitur, et Jesu filii Sirach liber, et Jiulilh, et Tobias, et Pastor non sunt in canone. Macchabaeorum primum librum Hebraicnm reperi. Se- cundus Grapcu.« est. quod rx ipsa^uoque phrasi prnhnri potnst

328 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

bers; the fifth, Deuteronomy. These are the five books of Moses, which they call Thora, the law. The second class con- tains the prophets, which they begin with the book of Joshua, the son of Nun. The next is the book of the Judges, with which they join Ruth, her history happening in the time of the Judges. The third is Samuel, 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 Kingdoms, 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 Hagiographa, or sacred writings ; the first of which is Job ; 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 second of the Remains; the eighth is Ezra, which among the Greeks and Latins makes two books ; the ninth is Esther. Thus there are in all two and twenty books of the old law ; that is, five books of Moses, eight of the prophets, and nine of the Hagiographa. But some reckon Ruth and the Lamentations among the Hagiographa; so there will be four and twenty. This prologue I write as a preface to all the books to be translated by me from the Hebrew into Latin, that we may know that all the books which are not of this number, are to be reckoned -Apocryphal ; therefore, Wisdom, which is com- monly called Solomon's, and the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobit, and the Shepherd, 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." We have two other catalogues furnished by Jerome, one in the Bibliotheca Divina, and the other in a letter to Paulinus, both exactly according with this.

To these testimonies may be added a passage which occurs in the Preface to his translations of the books of Solomon ;* " I

* Tres libros Salomonis, id est, Proveibia, Ecclesiasten, Canticum Canti-

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 329

have translated," says he, "the three books of Solomon, that is, the Proverbs, Ecclesiasies and Canticles, from the ancient ver- sion of the Seventy. As for the book called by many the Wis- dom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus, which all know to be writ- ten by Jesus the Son of Sirach, I have forborne to translate them; for it was my intention to send you a correct edition of the canonical Scriptures, and not to bestow labor 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 Apocryphal additions to Daniel, as not found in the Hebrew, and as having exposed Christians to ridicule, for the respect which they paid to them.t Although he translated Tobit and Judith, from Chaldee into Latin, yet he pronounces each of them to be Apocryphal. Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and Maccabees, he never translated at all.

It is perfectly plain from these testimonies, that Jerome ac- knowledged no other books of the Old Testament to be inspired, but those which were received by the Jews; and it deserves to

coram, veteri Septuaginta interpretum auctoritate reddidi. Porro in eo libro, qui a plerisque sapientia Salomonis inscribitur, et in ecclesiastico, quern esse Jesu filii Sirach nullus ignorat, calamo temperavi ; tantummodo canonicas Scripturas vobis emendare desiderans, et studium meum certis magis quam dubiis conimendare. — Pr. in Libr. Salom. juxta Septuag. Interp. t. i. p. 1419.

* Libram autem Baruch, notarii ejus, qui apud Hebraeos nee legitur, nee habetur, praetermissimus. — Prol. in Germ. t. i.p. 554.

t Hoc idcirco, ut diffictiltatoin vobis Danielis ostenderem ; qui apud He- braeos nee SusannjB habet historiam, nee Hymnum trium puerorum, nee Belis Draconisque fabulas ; quas nos, quia in toto orbe dispersae sunt, vero anteposito easque jugulante, subjecimus ; ne videremur apud imperitos magnam partem voliiminis detruncasse. Audivi ego quendam de proeceptoribus Judaeorum, quum Susannae derideret historiam, et a Graeco ncscio quo diceret esse con- fectam, illud opponere quod Origeni quoque Africanus opposuit, ctymologias

has, airo rov o-xivov a^Kxai, Kai mro rov irpii'Jv -rrpio-ai, de GraJCO serinonc de-

scendere. Deinde tantum fuissc otii tribus puevis cavillabatur, ut in camino aestuantis ineendii metro ludercnt, et per ordinem et laudeni Dei omnia ele- menta provocarent. Aut quod miraculum divinacque aspirationis judicum, vel draconem interfectum offa picis, vel sacerdotum Belis machinas deprehensas 1 QuaB magis prudentia solertes viri quam prophetati spiritu perpetrata. — Pr. in Dan. f. i.p. 990.

15*

330 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

be remarked that he characterized the Hebrew canon as emphati- cally the " canon of Hebrew verity." It was alone the infallible testimony of truth.

The testimony of Jerome is felt to be so important and con- clusive, that Romanists have resorted to various expedients for the purpose of obviating its force. In the first place it has been contended that he was not treatinor of the canon of the Christian Church, nor of the books which, in his own opinion, ought to be received as inspired, but only of those which the Jews ac- knowledged. This objection, however, is so plainly inconsistent with the language which Jerome employs, that Bellarmin, too wise to defend it, frankly confesses that it is utterly without foun- dation. It is amazing how Cocceius, Catharinus and Canus could gravely have proposed an explanation of this sort, when it was clearly written before them that *' the Church reads such and such books, but does not receive them as canonical."

Cardinal Perron, who admits, however, that Jerome was treat- ing of the Christian canon, resorts to a solution so exceedingly ridiculous, that one cannot but conjecture that the Cardinal him- self was laboring under just the opposite infirmity. In his opin- ion, Jerome had not reached, when he wrote his memorable pro- logue, the ripeness of his studies. It is hard to fix any precise and definite period for the development and maturity of the in- tellectual powers. But to be an infant at fifty — and such was the age, according to the lowest calculation, which the venerable Father had then attained* — is an infirmity so closely approx- imating to absolute idiocy, that the Cardinal, I apprehend, 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 im- becility of mind, or the extravagance and rashness of youth.

It has also been attempted to destroy the force of this testi- mony, 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 distinctly declares that

* Jerome wrote his Prologue about the year 392. He was born according to Baroniua about the year 340 ; according to others he was bprn still earlier.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 331

fee received it as authentic* He says, to be sure, that others -doubted of it, but that is very different from calling it into ques- tion 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 re- tracted the censure which he had formerly pronounced upon the spurious additions to Daniel — that in his Preface to Tobit, he impugns the integrity of the Hebrev/ 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 to 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 pas- sages which are cited, to show that there is no foundation what- ever for any of these assumptions.

In reference to the Apocryphal additions to Daniel, Ruffinus was as far from admitting their inspiration, as Jerome himself. He could not, therefore, with the least degree of propriety or consistency, censure his former friend for opinions which they held in common. But Jerome was understood 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 Ruffinus.t 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 was he from subscribing to their Divine inspiration, that he reiterates the approbation which he had formerly given of the Reply of Origen to Porphyry, who had quoted these works — " that they were not possessed of the authority of Scripture, and therefore Christians were not bound to defend them." There is, conse- quently, but one principle on which Jerome can be made to en-

* Nos et Apoc. et Rpisiolavi Fauli ad Hehrcpos recipimus. — Epist. ad Dardanum.

f Apol. Q ndv."*. RnfP.n

332 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

dorse the claims of these wretched fictions, and that is, whatever he did not believe to be fabulous^ 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 who had urged him to translate it, although in so doing he was aware that he had exposed himself to the reproach of the Jews. He adds, however, that he judged it better to displease the Phar- isees, than to disregard the injunctions of the Bishops.* But surely to translate a book — a book w^iich was allowed to be read in the church, and was commended as a 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 expres- sions 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 passage in which he repre- sents the Jews as ranking this book in the class of Hagiographa. The word Hagiographa is an evident mistake of the copyist for Apocrypha — and so the ablest doctors among the Romanists themselves have agreed.f The glaring falsehood of the asser- tion, upon any other supposition, is enough to show that the text is vitiated.

So again it is contended that he changed his opinion in ref- erence 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 eminent example of chas- tity, and was suited to edify the people, and because the story went that the Council of Nice had inserted it in the canon. J On these grounds he translated the work, but not a hint does he drop that he received it as inspired. We may therefore con- clude in the words of Bishop Cosin : " And thus have we made it to appear that St. Jerome was always constat herein to him-

* Prefat. in Tobiam.

t Comestor, Hugo the Cardinal, Tortatus, Driedo, Catharin. have all pro- nounced it to be a corrupt reading. X Prefat. in Judith.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 333

self. 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 prelend 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 Com- mentary upon the Prophet Haggai and his Epistle to Turia, wherein the book of Judith reniaineth uncanonized. In the year 390 he wrote his Epistle to Laeta, and therein he is still constant to his Prologue. About the same year he wrote upon the Pro- phet Jonas, where the book of Tobit is kept out of the canon. In the year 400 (or somewhat after) he wrote upon Daniel, and there Susannah, 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 Commentary upon Ezechiel, wherein he acknowledged no more books of the Old Testament than he had counted before, but continued his belief and judgment herein to the day of his death, which followed not long after."

X. I shall next give the testimony of Ruffinus,* once the beloved

* Hie igitur spiritus sanctus est, qui in veteri testamento legem etprophetas, in novo evangelica et apostolos inspiravit. Unde apostolus dicit: omnis Scrip- tura inspirata utilis est ad docendum. Et ideo quae sunt novi ac veteiis Testa- menti voluinina, quae secundum majorum traditionem per ipsum spiritum sanc- tum inspirata creduntur, et ecclesiis Christi tradita, competens videtur hoc in ioco evidenti numero, sicut ex patrum monumentis accepimus, designare. Ita- que veteris Testamenti omnium primo Moysi quinque libri sunt traditi, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numerus, Deuteronomium ; post haec Jesus Nave,et Judicum, simul cum Ruth. Quatuor post haec Regnorum libri, quosHebraei duos numer- ant. Paralipomena, qui Dieiiim dicitur Liber, et Esdrse duo, quia a pud iilos singuli compulantur, et Hester. Prophetarum vero Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, et Daniel, preterea duodccim Prophetarum, liber unus. Job quoque, et Psalmi David singuli sunt libri. Salomon vero tres ecclesiae tradidit, Proverbia, Eccle- siasten, Canticum Canticorum. In his concluserunt numerum librorum veteris Testamenti. Sciendum tamen est, quod et alii libri sunt, qui ne sunt canonici, sed ecclesiastici a majoribus appellati sunt ; ut est sapientia Salomonis, et alia Sapientia, quae dicitur filii Sirach, qui liber apud Latinos, hoc ipso generali vo- cabulo. Erclesia.stirus appellatur. Dure Via', vol Jndirium Petri. Quae omnia

334 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

friend, and afterwards the open and avowed adversary of Jerome. In his Exposition of the Apostles' Creed, he says, ''This, then, is the Holy Spirit who, in the Old Testament, inspired the Law and the Prophets, and in the New, the Gospels and Epistles. Wherefore the Apostle says, that ' all Scripture is given by in- spiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine.' It will not, therefore, be improper to enumerate here the books of the New and the Old Testament, 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, Numbers, Deuteronomy. After these are Joshua the Son of Nun, and the Judcres, toorether with Ruth. Next, the four books of the King- doms, (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 churches : the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; with these they include the number of the books of the Old Testament. However, it ought to be ob- served that there are also other books which are not canonical, but have been called by our forefathers, ecclesiastical : 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 bookof Tobit, and the books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament is the book of the Shepherd or of Her- nias, which is called the Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter. All which they would have to be read in the churches, but not

legi quidem in ecclesiis voluerunt, non tamen proferii ad auctoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam. Caeteras vero scripturas apocryphas nominarunt quas in ecclesiis legi noluerunt. Hsec nobis a patribus, ut dixi, tradita, opportunum visum est hoc in loco designare, ad instructionem eorani, qui prima sibi eccle- siae ac fidei elementa suscipiunt, ut sciant ex quibus sibi fontibus verbi Dei hau- rienda sint pocula. — Ruffin. in Symb. ap Cyprian in App. pp. 26, 27, et np Hier. t. V. pp. 141. 142.

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED AND REFUTED. 335

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."

XL I shall close this list of testimonies with the canon of the Council of Laodicea, which was afterwards confirmed at Con- stantinople in the close of the seventh century. The closing de- crees are in these words :* " Private Psalms should not be read in the church, 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 ought to be read are these : I, The Genesis, or generation of the World ; 2, The Exodus out of Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua the son of Nun ; 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 Ecclesiastes ; IG, 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 testi- mony 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

* On ov ^ci iSio)riKOVi ^PaX/iovj 'ScyeoOat ev rt] CKKXrjcria, ov^c UKut'oitara Pt0}ita, aWn jiDfit ja KavoviKa rrji TTa'Xaiag Kai Kaivr/i SiaBrinrii.

Offti hi PtP\ia avaytvioaKcadat rr/f naXaiai diaOrjKr}^ • a' Fcj'C'TK Ivonjiov. d' E|- oCoi fs AiyvTOV. y' A.tviTiKov. (V A-piOjioi. e' AcvTcpovofitoi'. j' I/jffot's ISari;. (' l\.pirai, PovO. 7]' YiaQi)p. 0' BaaeXeuov a Kut 13' . j/3' EcrJpaf a' Kai (i' . ty' (ii- 8\oi ^PaX/i(0»'. i6' TIapotiitai SiXo/iMj/roj. ic' KKK-'SriataaTrji. n' Aff/ia Aff^arwr. i^' \(x)!3. IT)' Si'ih-Kt^ UpofnTai. id' Hffrtuaj. ik' Icpc/ua?, Kai Bupovx, Qprivoi KUi Kirt- fTToXai. Kii' Ic^£(f(>7>. ^7?' Aui'(7?X Cavon of the Cmmril nf Lnndirrn. — Lnh- bcns p.t Copnrt, torn. i. p. 5007.

836 ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

against Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and Maccabees. These books were held to be eminently useful, and specially adapted to the instruction and improvement of recent converts. Their omis- sion, therefore, cannot be explained upon the same principle with the omission of the Apocalypse. Why then were they not admit- ted into the canon ? But one answer can be given, and that is, they were not canonical. Though upon this hypothesis, the de- cree of Laodicea did not require all canonical books to be read, yet it permitted none to be used which were not canonical.

In the second place, the Fathers might not have been satis- fied that the Apocalypse was really the work of John. It was the last of the sacred books, and the evidences of its inspiration might not have been fully known to the bishops at Laodicea. The primitive Christians guarded the Scriptures with diligence and care, and were willing to admit no book into the canon of inspiration until they had thoroughly examined its credentials. This very caution gives us greater confidence in their opinions, as it is a strong security that nothing was done rashly or without adequate foundation. But if the Apocrypha had been delivered by Christ and his apostles to the Christian church as inspired compositions, the evidenc,e of the fact must have been as exten- sive as the Gospel itself. To doubt of them, therefore, is to condemn them. If the evidence of their inspiration was un- known in the middle of the fourth century, it must forever re- main in obscurity. The authors of the books had been dead for centuries — their names and memorials had vanished from the earth : there was no possibility of directly proving that they had confirmed their commission by signs and wonders. The only evidence which ihe church could enjoy was the testimony of men who were known to be inspired, and the only men to whom they could appeal were the apostles of Christ, and if for four cen- turies no traces are found of any testimony borne by those chosen heralds of the truth to the divine authority of these books, their claims must be abandoned as totally incapable of proof

The Revelation of John and the Apocryphal books did 'not stand upon the same footing. There were abundant means of proving that the one was written by the disciple whom Jesus loved, while there were no means whatever of attesting the other

APOCRYPHA DISCUSSED \ND REFUTED. 337

to be the word of God. The fathers, therefore, might have been subsequently satisfied in reference to the one, w hicli tliey never could have been in reference to the other.

Finally, the Apocalypse may have been omitted in transcrib- ing the canon, by the negligence of copyists. This, I take to be the true solution of the difficulty. In some editions, the Epistle to Philemon is left out and in others inserted. But it would have been an extraordinary blunder to have omitted through mistake such a collection of books as those which compose the Apocry- pha. Whichever, therefore, of these hypotheses we may choose to adopt to explain the difficulty in reference to Revelation, the Apocrypha must be rejected.

The testimony of the Christian church for four hundred years has now been briefly reviewed, and we find an universal concur- rence in the canon of the Jews. North and south, east and west, in Europe, Asia and Africa, the most learned and distinguished de- fenders of the faith, however widely they differed or warmly dis- puted upon other points, are cordially at one whenever they treat of the documents which constitute the Rule of Faith. In all their catalogues the Apocrypha are excluded ; and in some instances it is expressly added that they were not to be received, as Trent assures us they should be, with the same piety and veneration which are due to the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms. How, if Christ and His apostles had delivered these books to the Chris- tian church as inspired and authoritative records, how can we explain the amazing unanimity of the primitive fathers in rejecting them from the sacred canon? How comes it that, in no quarter of the earth, the injunctious of apostles were respected, but that even in the churches which had been^planted by their hand and bedewed by their blood, in sixty years after the last of their num- ber had retired to his long repose, these books were excluded from a place in the list of inspired compositions ? The fact is utterly inexplicable; and if with the mass of historical testimony which has already been arrayed against their pretensions to Di- vine authority, they are after all a veritable part of the Word ofGod, truth and fiction are confounded, moral reasoning is at an end — and all responsibility for conduct or opinions must for ever cease.

In the first place, they were confessedly rejected by the

:^3S ROMANIST ARGUMENTS FOR THE

Jewish church. The writers themselves were Jews; and if they had been able to attest their inspiration by signs and wonders and mighty works, the only credentials of a messenger from hea- ven, their own nation must have known the fact. Yet the Jews with one voice repudiate these books. In the next place, they were rejected by the Son of God. For he approved and confirm- ed the Hebrew canon. And finally, they were rejected for four hundred years by the whole body of the Christian church. And yet, with all this amount of historical evidence against them, Trent has the audacity to declare that they are entitled to equal veneration with Moses, the Prophets, Evangelists and Apostles; and when every other argument fails her, she only adds to her arrogance and blasphemy by pretending to "thunder with a voice like God" — to imitate the very style of Jehovah, and to command the nations to receive her canon, because she says it is Divine.

APPENDIX.

From the Spirit of the Nineteenth Century. THE APOCRYPHAL BOOKS.

BY PROFESSOR THORNWELL.

In nothincr is the intolerable arroorance of the Church of Rome more strikingly displayed, than in the authority which, if she does not formally claim, she yet pretends to exercise, of dispensing the Holy Ghost not merely to men themselves, but also to their wri- tings. Thus the famous Council of Trent has attempted to make that divine which is notoriously human, and that inspired which, in the sense of the Apostle, is notoriously of " private interpretation." We allude, of course, to the conduct of Rome in placing the Apocrypha upon an equal footing with the sacred oracles of God. Among the books which the " holy (Ecumenical and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit," has declared should be received with equal piety and veneration with the unquestioned word of God, and which indeed have God for their author, are Tohit, Judith, the additions to the. Hook of Es- ther, Wisdom, Ecchisiasticus, liaruch with the Epistle of Jer- emiah, the Song of the Three Children, the story of Susannah, the story of Bel and the Dragon, and the frst and second books of Maccabees.

Having by its own authority constituted these books a part of the Word of God, the Holy Council proceeded to pronounce its usual malediction upon all who would not receive them as sacred and canonical. Now in direct opposition to this wicked and blasphemous sentence of Rome, we assert most unhesitatingly, and shall endeavor triumphantly to prove, that these books, com- monly called the Apocrypha, are neither " sacred nor canonical,"

340 APPENDIX,

and of course, have no more authority in the Church of God than Seneca's Letters, or Tully's Offices.

Let it be remarked, however, that the onus probandi rests upon the Papists. The presumption is against them until they adduce satisfactory testimony in behalf of their extravagant pretensions. Nay, even defect of proof is fatal to their cause. They bring us certain documents and declare that they were given by inspiration of God. We are bound to treat these documents, as we treat all other writings, merely as human productions, until clear and co- gent arguments for the Divine original are submitted to our un- derstandings. Hence, the Protestant cause is fully made out by failure of proof on the Part of the Romanists. We are not re- quired in justification of our position, to advance a single argu- ment against the inspiration of these books. Our course is a righteous, a necessary one, until they are proved to be inspired. We think it important that this high vantage ground of Protest- antism, in the argument upon this subject, should be fully appre- hended. Not because we are unable to prove that these books are not inspired, but in order that it may be distinctly understood that all our positive arguments against them are ex abundanti — are over and above what is actually required of us in the case. If our position is justified by failure on the part of Rome to es- tablish her assertion, it is more than justified — it is doubly forti fied and rendered wholly impregnable by the irresistible argu- ments which we are able to allege against the inspiration of the Apocryphal books. With the distinct understanding, then, that we are doing a work which justice to our own cause does not ab- solutely require, but which only exposes in a stronger light the arrogance and blasphemy of Rome, we proceed to show by a few positive considerations, that these books have not the shadow of a claim to Divine inspiration.

1. Our first argument is drawn from the indisputable fact that these books were not found in the canon of the Jews in the time of our Saviour and his Apostles. It is even doubted by learned men whether some of them existed at all, until some time after the last of the Apostles had fallen asleep. But be this as it may, they were not in the sacred canon of the Jews or the catalogue of books which the whole nation received as coming from God,

APPENDIX. 341

We have very clear testimony upon the subject of the Jewish canon, in Josephus, Philo, the Talmucl, and the early Christian Fathers. It is unnecessary to quote these testimonies at full length. Those who have not access to the original works, may find them faithfully collated in Schuidius De Canone Sacro, and Wi Eichhorri's Einleitung. We would particularly commend to the reader's attention Merncmann's book De Canone Philonis. Augustine again and again confesses that the Apocrypha formed no part of the Jewish canon. He declares that Solomon was not the author of the books of Ecclesiasticus and of Wisdom, and as- sures us, moreover, that these books were chiefly respected by the Western Christians. He informs us that Judith was not re- ceived by the Jews; and his testimony in relation to Maccabees is equally decisive. We insist upon the testimony of Augustin, which maybe found in his Treatise DeCiv.Dei, lib. i.c.17, because he had evidently a very great respect for these books, for he frequently quotes them ; and because he was a member of the bodies whose decisions in their favor have been strongly and earnestly pleaded. We take it then to be a fact which no scho- lar would think of calling into question, sustained by the con- curring testimony of Jews and Christians for four hundred years after Christ, that the Jews rejected the Apocrypha from their canon. For the purpose of our present argument it is not ne- cessary to show what books they did receive, nor how they classed and arranged them. It is enough that they had a canon which they believed to be inspired, and that in it the Apocrypha were not included.

Now our argument is this : Jesus Christ and his Apostles ap- proved of the Jewish canon, whatever it was, appealed to it as possessing divine authority, and evidently treated it as at that time complete, or as containing the whole of God's revelation as far as it was then made. If the Apocrypha had been really a part of that revelation, and the Jews had either ignorantly or wickedly suppressed it, how comes it that Christ nowhere re- bukes them for their error? We find him severely inveighing against the Pharisees for adding to the Word of God by their vain traditions, but not a syllable do we hear in regard to what was equally culpable, their taking from it, which they certainly

342 APPENDIX.

had done if the Apocrypha were inspired. Here was confessed- ly a great teacher and prophet in Israel — their long-expected Messiah, who constituted the burden of their Scriptures, accord- ing to his own testimony ; and yet while he quotes and approves the canon of the Jews, and remands the Jews themselves to their own Scriptures, he nowhere insinuates that their sacred library was defective. If the Jews had done wrong in rejecting the Apocrypha, is it credible that he who came in the name of God, a teacher sent from God to reveal fully the Divine will, would have passed over without noticing such a flagrant fraud? We find him reproving his countrymen for every other corruption in regard to sacred things of which they are known to have been guilty, but not a whisper escapes his lips or the lips of his Apos- tles touching this gross supi)ression of a large portion of the Word of God. The conclusion is irresistible, that neither Jesus nor his Apostles believed in the Divine authority of the Apocry- pha ; they knew that they were not inspired. We will grant the Romanist what he cannot prove, and what ive can disprove, that these books are quoted in the New Testament. This will not remove the difficulty. According to his views of the canon, the Jews were guilty of an outrageous fraud in regard to the Sacred Oracles, and yet neither Christ nor his Apostles, whose business it was to give us the ichole revelation of God, ever charged them with this fraud, or took any steps to restore the rejected books to their proper places. Christ, as the great Prophet of the Church, was unfaithful to his high and solemn trust, if he stood silently by when the Word of God was trampled in the dust, or buried in obscurity, or even robbed of its full authority. To the Jews were committed the Oracles of God (Rom. iii. 2.) ; if they be- trayed their trust, we ought to have been informed of it before the lapse of sixteen centuries.

It is in vain to allege that Christ and his Apostles used the Septuagint, and that this version contained the Apocrypha. In the first place, it cannot be proved that the Septuagint at that time did contain the Apocrypha; in the second place, if it did contain them, the difficulty is rather increased than lessened. The question is, What books did the Jews, to whom were com- mitted the Oracles of God, receive as inspired? Did Christ

APPENDIX. IW3

know that they rejected the Apocrypha from the list of inspired writings ? If so, and the Septuagint version was in his hands, and really contained these rejected books, what more natural than that Christ should have told his apostles that here are books which the Jews reject, but which you must receive ; they are of equal authority with the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms? His total silence both before the Jews and his own disciples be- comes more unaccountable than ever, if the books were actually before him and almost forced upon his notice by the version of the Scriptures which he used. But we do not insist upon this, because we do not believe that the Septuagint, at that time, con- tained the Apocrypha.* If it should be said that the Jews re- ceived these 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 Popish priests and rulers, at least to his own Apos- tles?

Upon every view of the subject, then, the silence of Christ is wholly unaccountable, if these writings are really inspired. It becomes simple and natural upon the supposition that they were merely human productions. The Jews had done right in reject- ing them ; they stood upon a footing with other literary works, and our Saviour had no more occasion^to mention them, than he had to mention the writings of the Greek Philosophers.

2. If it should be pretended that Christ did give his Apostles authority to receive these books, though no record was made of the fact, we ask how it comes to pass — and we mention this as our second arjTument aorainst them — that for four centuries the unbro- ken testimony of the Christian church is against their inspiration ? They are not included in the catalogues given by Melito,t Bish- op of Sardis, who flourished in the second century, of Origen,! Athanasius,§ Hilary, || Cyril of Jerusalem,^ Epiphanius,** Gre- gory Nazianzen,tt Ruflinus,|| and others; neither are they

* Viii. Schmidius de Canoiie. t Euseb lib.iv. c. '2G.

X Expos. Psal. i. 0pp. torn, ii. Euseb. vi. 25. § Pasch. Epist.

II Proloo;. in Fsalmos. IT 4th Cate. Excr. ** Hffires. i. 6.

tt Can. 23. ft Expos, ad symb. apost.

344 APPENDIX.

mentioned among the canonical books recognized by the council of Laodicea. As a sample of the testimonies referred to in the margin, we v/ill give a ^ew passages from Jerome, the author of the authentic version commonly called the Vulgate. In the preface concerning all the books of the Old Testament which he prefixed to his Latin translation of Samuel and Kings, after hav- ing given us the Jewish canon, he says, " Hie prologus scriptu- rarum, quasi Galeatum principium omnibus libris quas de He- braeo vertimus in Latinum convenire potest : ut scire valeamus quicquid extra hos est, inter Apocrypha esse ponendum." " Therefore," he adds, " Wisdom, which is vulgarly attributed to Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and Pastor, are not in the canon." His testimony in relation to the Maccabees, is equally divided. In the pro- logue to his Commentary on Jeremiah, he declines explaining the book oi Baruch, which in the edition of the LXX is com- monly joined with it, because the Jews rejected it from the canon, and he of course knew of no authority for inserting it. In the preface to his translation o{ Daniel, he assures us that the story of Susannah, the Song of the Three Children, and the Fables of Bel and the Dragon, are not only not in the Jewish copies, but had exposed Christians to ridicule for the respect which they paid to them. In his preface to Tobit and Judith he pronounces them Apocryphal !

Here, then, about the close of the fourth century, we find no remnant of any unwritten tradition from Christ and his apostles, authorizing the Church to receive these books. The early fa- thers followed in the footsteps of the Jews, and unanimously concurred in receiving no other canon of the Old Testament as inspired, but that which came down to them through the Jewish Church. In this opinion, learned men in every age have con- curred, up to the very meeting of the Council of Trent. We refer to such men as Cardinal Ximenes, Ludovicus Vives, the accomplished Erasmus, and Cardinal Cajetan. How could there have been such a general concurrence in an error so de- plorable, if Christ and his apostles had ever treated these books as the lively oracles of God ? Surely there would have been some record — some hint — of a fact so remarkable. We ask the

APPENDIX. 345

Romanist to reconcile the testimonies of the Fathers witli the decree of Trent. In the lanjruage of Bishop Burnet : " Here we have four centuries clear for our canon, in exclusion of all additions. It were easy to carry this much further down, and to show that these books (the Apocrypha) were never by any express definition received into the canon, till it was done at Trent, and that in all ages of the church, even after they came to be much esteemed, there were divers writers, and those gene- rally the most learned of their time, who denied them to be a part of the canon.

3. The third argument which we shall bring forward is drawn from the books themselves. In reading them we not only are struck with the absence of that " heavenliness of mat- ter, efficacy of doctrine, majesty of style, concert of all the parts, and general scope of the whole to give glory to God," by which the sacred Scriptures abundantly evidence themselves to be the word of God, but we are as forcibly struck with defects utterly inconsistent with these excellences. To say nothing of their silly and ridiculous stories, these books notoriously contain palpable lies, gross anachronisms, flat contradictions, and doc- trinal statements, wholly irreconcilable with what we are taught in the unquestioned oracles of God, Such things are totally inconsistent with the idea of inspiration.

It would be easy to make good these charges by citations from the books, but it is unnecessary to protract our article by quotations which have again and again been made for the same purpose.

What, under the present head, we wish particularly to re- mark, is, that these books, or at least several of them, virtually disclaim all pretensions to inspiration. They do not profess to be the word of God, and why should Protestants be blamed for not conceding to them an authority which they themselves do not claim? They come to us from their authors merely as human productions — we treat them as such, and yet we are consiorned to the damnation of hell, because we do not believe that a writer was inspired, when he did not believe it himself!

The author of the second book of Maccabees professes to have abridged a work of Jason ofCvrene, and concerning his perform-

1 T)

346 APPENDIX.

ance, he holds the following language, which can be reconciled with a belief on his part that he w^as inspired, when light is made to have fellowship with darkness, and God with Belial, and not till then : — " Therefore, to us that have taken upon us this pain- ful labor of abridging, it was not easy, but a matter of sweat and watching, even as it is no ease to him that prepareth a banquet, and seeketh the benefit of others ; yet for the pleasing of many, we will undertake gladly this great pains, leaving to the author the exact handling of every particular, and laboring to follow the rules of an abridgment," &c (2 Mac. ii. 26, seq.) Here his motives, as assigned by himself, are such as induce ordinary men to vv^rite, and his method is taken from the common rules of crit- icism. In other words, it is obviously a human composition, and was intended to have no more authority than any other historical document. To the same purport is the following sentence near the close of the book : " And 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." Is this the language of a man who " spake as he was moved by the Holy Ghost?" Does he seem to have drawn from the inexhaustible fountain of Divine truth, or from the shallow resources of his own mind ? Verily, none but a madman could speak on this wise, and yet believe that he was inspired of God, The prologue to Ecclesiasticus — a production of Jesus the Son of Sirach — is just as decisive in reference to it. As it is too long to quote, we shall content ourselves by simply referring to it. The writer asks pardon for a defective interpretation of a Hebrew document, and declares that his whole performance was the result of diligence and tra- vail, of great watchfulness and skill. And yet, according to the Romanist, instead of being the product of human thought and labor, it was the supernatural dictation of the Holy Ghost. The pretence in this case is too absurd for argument. In the first book of Maccabees, we are assured that there was not a prophet or inspired man in Israel to direct them what to do with the al- tar which had been profaned. (1 Mac. iv. 46.) The same decla- ration is repeated in the course of the book again, and yet, con- trary to his own testimony, we are required to believe that the writer himself was inspired. In fact, it was the universal opin-

APPENDfX. 347

ion of the Jewish nation, that inspiration ceased with Malachi, not to be revived until the dawn of the new dispensation, and that, consequently, no books which were written after the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus were worthy of any credit as inspired records.

We might go over each of the Apocryphal books, one by one, and produce such numerous instances of falseliood, error, con- tradiction, and absurdity, as to render it utterly impossible that any should attribute them to God but those whose credulity is enormous enough to swallow down the nonsense and blasphemy of transubstantiation, and to believe that God can be multiplied by the million without disturbing His unity, and made at will, out of cakes and wine, without detracting from His glory. Such men can believe any thinor and to such men it is useless to uro-e the authority of Christ and his apostles — vain to allege the con- curring testimony of the leading writers of the primitive church — vainer still to plead absurdity, contradiction and lies, and even implied disclaimers from the writings in question ; they have an authority higher than all these. The Council of Trent has spo- ken— the man of sin and the son of perdition, who has given out that he is God, has spoken from his throne of blasphemy and abominations; and the voice of a general council and the Pope is enough to silence reason, to sanctify blasphemy, and to canon- ize falsehood.

But to tliose who are not yet fastened as captives to the car of Rome, we appeal in the confident expectation of success. Can any candid and unprejudiced mind believe that these books proceeded from God, when there is not a particle of evidence to establish the fact — when the Jewish church, to which were com- mitted the Oracles of God, rejected them — when Christ and his Apostles rejected them — when for four centuries united Christendom rejected them — when up to the very time of the meetino- of Trent, the most enlightened inembers of the church of Rome rejected them — when, in addition to all this, the books themselves do not profess to be inspired, and abound in absurd- ity, contradiction and lies? Despising the authority of Popes and Councils, we bring the matter to the bar of sober reason and sound argument, and we challenge Rome to vindicate herself from the charge of intolerable arrogance and blasphemy in her

348 APPENDIX.

corrupt additions to the word of God. The argument which she uses with her own vassals will not do among thinking men. Until she can adduce clear, decided, unanswerable proof of the inspi- ration of the Apocrypha, all who reverence God or love their race, are solemnly bound to reject these books, and to treat them pre- cisely as all Protestant churches always have treated them. Rome may denounce her anathema against us, but we know full well that the terrible malediction of God rests upon her. It is not a light matter whether we receive or reject these writings. If they are not inspired, those who receive them run the risk of everlasting damnation — if they are, those who reject them are exposed to the same danger.

That Protestants reject them because they contain unpalata- ble doctrines, is a fiction of the Roman Priesthood to divert at- tention from the real state of the argument. Light is death to their cause, and therefore they resort to every trick of sophistry and of falsehood to obscure the question at issue, and to escape unexposed in their frauds and impostures. We reject them be- cause thty are not inspired, and we shall continue to do so until the contrary is clearly proved, as well as boldly asserted. Let the Romanist come up manfully to the point of inspiration — that is the issue between us, and upon that issue we are always ready to meet them.

Letter I

To the Reverend James H. Thornwell, Professor of the Evidences of Chris- tianity^ S/-C.

Reverend Sir, I need offer no apology for thus publicly address- ing you. The Columbia Chronicle of the 15th ult., forwarded tome a few weeks ago by a friend, contains an article under your name on what you term the Apocryphal Books, which at my request the Editors of the Miscellany republish together with this letter. The character of that article is such as to render it no longer an intrusion either on you or on the public thus to vindicate the Catholic church from your attacks.

Permit me to take this occasion of expressing, once for all, my regret at finding an essay from you so plentifully interspersed

APPENDIX. 349

with the vulgar epithets papist, Romanist, and such manifestations of ill feeling as the expressions vassals of Rome and captives to the car of Romc^ the assertion that 'our credulity is enormous ' and your mocking language concerning the awful mystery of transubstantiation and the church, with which even in quotation I am unwilling to sully my pen. Believe me, Reverend Sir, such invectives contain no argument. They are unbecoming the subject, and, may I presume to add, the dignified station you occupy. Your essay would have lost none of its weight, and to Catholics would have been infinitely less revolting, had they been omitted. Catholics are neither outcasts from society nor devoid of feeling ; they are neither insensible to, nor think ihey deserve, such words of opprobrium. It is true we have often to draw on our patience, for the rules of courtesy are frequently violated in our regard. Still it is painful to see a Professor descending from calm, gentlemanly and enlightened argument, to mingle with the crowd of those whose weapons are misrepre- sentations and abuse. To me it is doubly painful when such language obliges me not to respect as highly as I would desire those whom I address. I will not recur to this disagreeable top- ic, but will endeavor to write as if your arguments were unac- companied by what Catholics must consider as insults.

I cordially agree with you that ' it is not alight matter wheth- er we receive or reject those writings' which are contained in the canon of the holy Scriptures as received by the Catholic church, and are excluded from that generally adopted by the different de- nominations of Protestantism. Still I am not prepared to unite unconditionally in your denunciatory clauses. Undoubtedly all who know the truth, are bound to believe and profess it; other- wise they * run the risk of eternal damnation.' All too are bound, according to their ability, sincerely, earnestly^and perse- veringly to seek the truths of revelation on this as on all other points ; and those who, having the means, neglect to do so, * are exposed to the same danger.' Still there may bedhers to whom Divine Providence has not vouchsafed such means ; and they as- suredly will not be punished for not performing an impossibility. Your essay contains some preliminary remarks on the author- ity of the church to declare what books are sacred and canonical,

350 APPENDIX.

and on the state of the question ; and lays down three arguments to prove that the books in question are not inspired. I shall take up these different heads in order, and trust, by a few remarks in this and perhaps two or three other letters, to convince a ' can- did and unprejudiced mind by sound argument and sober reason,' that the Catholic church has not been guilty of the heinous crime you lay at her door, that of making corrupt additions to the word of God.

You commence with the following remarks :

'' In nothing is the intolerable arrogance of the church of Rome more strikingly displayed, than in the authority, which if she does not formally claim, yet she pretends to exercise, of dis- pensing the Holy Ghost not merely to men themselves but also to their writings. Thus the famous Council of Trent has at- tempted to make that divine which is notoriously human, and that inspired which, in the sense of the apostle, is notoriously of ' private interpretation.' We allude, of course, to the conduct of Rome in placing the Apocrypha upon an equal footing with the sacred oracles of God. Among the books which the ' holy oecumenical and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit' has declared should be received with equal piety and veneration with the unquestioned word of God, and which indeed have God for their author, are Tobit, Judith, the additions to the book of Esther, Wisdom, Ecdesiasticus, Baruch with the Epistle of Jeremiah, the songs of the three children, the story of Susannah, the story of Bel and the Dragon, and the first and second books of Maccabees.

'' Having by its own authority constituted these books a part of the word of God, the Holy Council proceeded to pronounce its usual malediction upon all who would not receive them as sacred and canonical."

I doubt not. Reverend Sir, you here accurately express your conception of what the Council of Trent did in regard to the Scriptures. But your terms express neither the belief of Catho- lics nor the action of the Council. A Canon I have always un- derstood to be a list or a catalogue, setting forth what books are inspired, not giving or dispensing inspiration to uninspired books. A work to be entitled to place in a canon must be be-

AP1»ENDIX. 351

lieved already inspired; and if believed to be inspired at any one period it mnst be believed to have been always inspired. Until a canon is formed, a catalogue of inspired works drawn up, man- ifestly though many works may be sacred hecduse inspired, none can be canonical, because none can be inserted in a catalocrue which does not yet exist. He who forms a canon must naturally first decide what books are and what are not inspired. Did the council of Trent in making such a decision ' display intolerable arrogance?' Reverend Sir, your essay claims to contain a de- cision on that point, w^hich according to the rules and maxims of Protestantism proceeds from your own authority to decide for yourself, and for which you alone are responsible. If you alone, and the fathers of Trent together, are equally qualified to make that decision, then must the same terms which you apply to them, be applicable to yourself. If on the contrary any one should think you personally inferior to them in the qualifications of learning and research on this point, then, unless charity and courtesy forbid him, as certainly they do me, must he look for expressions, if possible, more bitter and harsh than your own. I presume, however, that the ardor with which you engaged in the contest, blinded your eyes to the fact, that while you made your very first thrust at the Council, you fatally exposed yourself to the retort.

We believe that the church of Christ will ever know, and be- lieve, and teach his doctrines and precepts ; that He has secured to her the possession of the truths of his revelation through the ministry of that body of pastors, of which the apostles were the first members, and whom he appointed his delegates and sent forth to ' baptize all nations, 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 DAYS, even to the consummation of the world. He promised tiiem the Spirit of truth who should teach them all truth. Hence vvc hold that the apostles and their successors in the ministry in the first and second, and in every succeeding century, /lavc taught and toill continue to the end of the world to teach all things that He taught them originally ; and when they testify that any doc- trine is one of those originally taught by the Saviour, and hand-

352

APPENDIX,

ed down to them by their predecessors in the mniistry, we feel bound to hear them, His delegated teachers, as we would hear Him, from whom they received their authority, and we, the assur- ance that He is with them, and teaches through them.

I will not, Reverend Sir, enter at large on the general proofs on this point. I might show that our doctrine is fully sustained by the words of the Saviour himself, that it has ever been recog- nized and acted on from the earliest days of Christianity, that the contrary is opposed to reason and the infinite wisdom of God, in- asmuch as it would ever leave us in doubt and indecision, and as only through it can all learn, with that certainty which is requir- ed for an unhesitating 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 reference to the canon of Scripture, and hope to show that the authority claimed by the Catholic Church of determining the canon, that is, of authorita- tively declaring what books have been committed to her care by 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. Rev. sir, included, have done. In the thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England and of the Protest- ant Episcopal church in the United States, in the Articles of the Methodist Episcopal church, and in the Westminster Confes- sion of the Presbyterians, we find canons of the Scriptures. Nothing is more natural than that several Ecclesiastical bodies, as these 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 ' author-

APPENDIX. 353

ity exercised ' in making it. In styling it * a striking display of intolerable arrogance,' you strike a blow which harms us not, but recoils with tenfold force on your own denomination. Surely, if the persons assembled 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 assembled in council declare too what books had ever been handed down in her bosom as the word of God. If it was no arrogance in the first to put forth a decree, which was valueless, because on their own principles it bound no one and which every member of your communion has 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 through- out the world felt had some weis^ht. You micjht 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 particular exercise of authority should be singled out for condemnation by a divine of a church which, without even claiming this commission or this authority for its decrees, has nevertheless performed the same act. One who rejects as uninspired the Canticle of Canticles, and if we may believe a recent writer in the Magnolia, there are many biblical scholars in this country who do, must look on the decla- ration of the Westminster Confession, that that book is inspired, as at least an equally striking display of intolerable arrogance, as the declaration of the Council of Trent, that the books you mention, were ever preserved in the church, and must still be held as divinely inspired. I might also say that it is not more arrogant to declare that a contested book is divinely inspired, than that a contested doctrine or precept is contained in the Scripture. And yet we need not go back many months to find your Assembly declaring this last, and enforcing its declaration under penalty of suspension from the ministry and exclusion from your sacrament. I press this view farther than peihaps seems necessary ; but your article, like most articles written against us, breathes a spirit, which I will not qualify, but which

16*

354 APPENDIX.

would exclude the Catholic church from that right Protestants boast God has given to all men, — to believe in religious matters, according to our own judgment, and to declare what she holds true.

With these remarks on the performance of the act, let us pass on to the decision itself and its truth. I have taken exception to the idea of the decision conveyed by your words. Let the Fathers speak for themselves.

" Sacrosancta cecumenica et generalis Tridentina Synodus, in Spiritu Sancto legitime congregata, praesidentibus in eaiisdem tribus ApostolicsB Sedis legatis, hoc sibi perpetuo anto oculos proponens, ut, sublatis erroribus, puritas ipsa evangelii in ecclesia conservetur ; quod promissum ante per prophetas in Scripturis Sanctis, Dominus noster Jesus Christus Dei filius proprio ore primum promulgavit ; deinde per suos apostolos tanquam fontem omnis et salutaris veritatis et morum disciplinae omni creaturae praedicari jussit : perspiciensque banc veritatem et disciplinam contineri in libris scriptis, et sine scripto traditionibus, quae ip- sius Christi ore ab Apostolis acceptae, aut ab ipsis Apostolis, Spiritu sancto dictante, quasi per manus traditae ad nos usque pervenerunt : orthodoxorum Patrumexemplasecuta, omnes libros tam veteris quam novi Testamenti, cum utriusque unus Deus sit auctor, nee non traditiones ipsas,tum ad fidem tum ad mores pertinentes, tanquam ore tenus a Christo, vel a Spiritu sancto dictatas, et continua successione in Ecclesia catholica conserva- tas pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit et veneratur. Sa- crorum vero librorum indicem huic decreto adscribendum cen- suit; ne cui dubitatiosuboriri possit, quinamsint, qui ab ipsa sy- nodo suscipiuntur. Sunt vero infra scripti, (here follows the list containing the books you object to.) Si quis autem libros ipsos integros cum omnibus suis partibus, prout in Ecclesia catholica legi consueverant, et in veteri vulgata Latina editione habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit, et traditiones praedictas sciens et prudens contempserit; anathema sit."

" The holy oecumenical and general Council of Trent, law- fully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the three aforesaid Legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein ; having this always in view, that errors being taken away, the purity of that gospel should be preserved in the church, which, promised by the

APPE^DIx. 355

prophets in the Holy Scriptures, our Lord 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 truth and moral discipline; and clearly seeing that this truth and discipline is contained in 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 down even to us, delivered as it were from hand to hand ; following the example of the orthodox Fathers, receives with due piety and reverence, and venerates, all the hooks, as well of the Old as of the New Testament, since one God is the au- thor of both, and also those traditions appertaining to faith and morals, which have been held in the Catholic church in con- tinued 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 ijirre follows the list, containing the books to which entirely or in part you object). 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 Catho- lic church, and are found in the old Latin vulgate edition ; and shall knowingly and industriously contemn the aforesaid tradi- tions, let him be anathema." ^essio quarta cclcbrata die viii. Mens April, MDXLVI.

This decree, you perceive. Rev. Sir, treats of the inspired Scriptures and the unwritten traditions. Your essay takes up the first topic: 1 leave the second, then, without any remark.

From this document it appears at first glance that the Coun- cil desired to draw up for the use of the faithful a canon or catalogue of the inspired Books, and that thejl inserted therein hose works which they were convinced had ever been looked up- on by the universal church as sacred and inspired. It is a doc- trine 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

356 APPENDIX.

such it has been and is received by the Catholic church through- out the world. Were any Catholic to refuse, he would be sepa- rated from her communion. She would no longer recognise in him a sheep of her own true fold : before the tribunal of God, he would stand or fall, accordincr as in his own conscience he was really more or less guilty or innocent of a violation of His supreme commands. This is the meaning of the phrase bor- rowed from the Scripture, anathema sit, let him be anathema, and used in every age of Christianity. You yourself, Rev. sir, have gone as far as you charge the Fathers with going, when you say, that if the books in question are uninspired, those who receive them "run the risk of eternal damnation." In your essay you declare that they are uninspired. The application is obvious.

Ilallam, a Protestant writer, in his Introduction to the Liter- ature of Europe, has the following passage. " No general council ever contained so many persons of eminent learning and ability as that of Trent : nor is there ground for believing that any other investigated the questions before it with so much patience, acuteness, temper, and desire of truth." 1 might quote from Roscoe and other Protestants, who were somewhat au fait with the continental Catholic literature of that period, similar, if not stronger, testimonies in their favor. Considering their^decree concerning the Scriptures, apart from the religious value with which the doctrine of the Catholic church invests it, I cannot think it deserves to be treated with such unceremonious disrespect as your essay exhibits. Hundreds of the most learned men in Europe, after patient examination and a thorough inves- tigation of all the evidence they could find on the subject, decide unanimously that a certain fact took place : for, on their own showing, the decree is based on such a decision. You, Rev. sir, think they were mistaken. Still, as literary opponents, you should feel they are no despicable adversaries. If it pleases you, as a divine, to consider them as a religious body, you see the most venerable, learned, and zealous pastors of a church, numbering 150,000,000 in the fold, assembling together, that by mutual advice, after due consultation, and earnest, persever- ing prayer, they may be enlightened by Him, whose ministers

api'i:m)1x. 357

they hold themselves to be, so as faithfully to instruct on a most important point, the multitudes that look to them for guidance in the way of eternal salvation. If I could believe that, notwith- standing, they fell into error; while I lamented it, I would still respect, revere them. I would often turn to that assembly, as a scene on which a Christian soul should love to dwell, and learn from them earnest zeal and fervent piety.

The question between us is, did they fall into error or not?

You remark that the onus probandi Vies on us, and that the pre- sumption is against the inspiration of those books you combat, until satisfactory evidence be brought forward to prove that point. This, Rev. Sir, is true, not only in reference to those books, but to all others, which it may be contended are inspired. Defect of such proof would be fatal to the cause g{ miy book.

Now I ' assert and shall endeavor to prove,' that the only ar- guments which establish the inspiration of those books which you admit are inspired, in that manner, and to the extent which com- mon sense and the nature of Christianity require that it should be proved, will also establish the inspiraton of the books you re- pudiate; and that if these are to be rejected, because of the in- sufficiency of those arguments in their support, the others must be at least generally rejected ; the conclusive arguments, at least, for the generality of Christians, being, as I shall show, identi- cally the same in both cases.

I need not say that the question, what writings are divinely inspired, has not been debated only within this and the last two centuries. There has ever been great difference on this head among those who professed to hold a revelation from Almighty God. The Sadducees and the Samaritans rejected all the books of the Old Testament, except those of Moses. The Nazarenes, on the other hand, rejected the Pentateuch. The Simonians, the Basilidians, the Marcionists, with the Manicheans, the Patricians, the Severians, the Albigenses, and some others, rejected the en- tire Old Testament. Many others have rejected various books. Nor has the New Testament escaped a similar fate. The four gospels were rejected by the Manicheans ; each book had its impugners, down to the Apocalypse or book of Revelations, which you well know was rejected by many, who were, and are

358 APPENDIX.

Still, accounted to have been orthodox. The Rationalists of Ger- many would smile with contempt and pity on the delusion, which in the effulgence of their philosophical Christianity would believe in any supernatural aid given to the scriptural writers. The deist among ourselves denies altogether the inspiration of the Bible. Nay, according to the principles you lay down, there is a time when every Protestant must doubt it. You are not, you say, at * liberty to believe,' the books you attack, to be inspired, 'until clear and decided proofs of the fact are brought forward.' Neither on the same ground is any Protestant * at liberty to be- lieve any documents to be inspired,' but is solemnly bound to * treat them as he treats all other writings, merely as human pro- ductions, until clear and cogent arguments for their divine origin are submitted to his understanding.' I think it important that this high 'vantage ground,' to use your own expression in the argument on this subject, ' should be fully apprehended;' for in order to meet your preamble more directly, I will base on it the following remarks, which I offer to your serious consideration and that of those whose sense of equity or whose curiosity may lead them to examine what a Catholic can say on the subject.

We cannot be called on to believe any proposition not sus- tained by adequate proof. When Almighty God deigned to inspire the works contained 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. The nature and scheme of Christianity requires that not one only in a thou- sand, but all those to whom Christianity is properly announced, of whatsoever age or condition they be, should believe it. There- fore, that proof of inspiration is adapted to all those ages and con- ditions, must be one which will strike the understanding of the wandering Indian and the unlettered negro slave, as clearly and as cogently as that of the enlightened Professor.

Now, Rev. Sir, there may be many ways of seeking to ascertain the fact of the inspiration of any writer or writers. They may, however, be all reduced to the four following methods : —

1. Is every man, no matter what be his condition, to investi- gate by his own labor and research, and duly examine the argu-

APPENDIX. ^9

ments that have been or can be alleged for and against the sev- eral books, which it is asserted are inspired; and on the strength of that examination to decide for himself with absolute certainty what books are and what are not inspired ?

2. Is every individual to receive books as inspired, or to re- ject them as uninspired, according to the decision of persons he esteems duly qualified by erudition and sound judgment to deter- mine that question accurately?

3. Must we learn the inspiration of the Scriptures from some individual, whom God commissioned to announce this fact to the world ?

4. Must he learn it from a body of individuals, to whom in their collective capacity, God has given authority to make an unerring decision on this subject?

1 might perhaps add a fifth method; that each one be in- formed what books are divinely inspired by his private spirit. But I omit it as, were it true, it would be superfluous, if not a criminal intrusion on the province God would have reserved to himself, to attempt to prove or disapprove, when our duty would be simply to await in patience this revelation to every particular individual. You are not a member of the Society of Friends, and your essay is not an expose of the teaching of your private spirit, but an effort to appeal to argument.

To some one of those four methods, every plan of proving the inspiration of the Scriptures can be reduced. You for your- self use the first ; appealing to the testimonies of antiquity in support of your proposition, and to arguments from seeming in- ternal imperfections. One who would rest satisfied with your dissertation, believing that your erudition and judgment must lead you to a sufficient acquaintance with those testimonies and to the proper decision thereon, and who would consequently seek nothing more, but unhesitatingly embrace your conclusion, would be using the second. The third is plain of itself The fourth, that sustained by Catholics, ** you despise."

Rev. Sir, you admit that there do exist divinely inspired writ- ings, and that Almighty God requires individuals of every na- tion, clime, and condition to receive them as inspired. Those individuals are "solemnly bound" to reject that inspiration, to

3(50 APPENDIX.

" treat those works as they treat all other writings, merely as human productions, — " of no more authority than Seneca's Let- ters or Tully's Offices" — (if they ever heard of them) — "until clear and cogent arguments for their divine origin are submitted to their understandings" — " until they are proved to be inspired." You are forced, therefore, to allow that God has provided such proof, suited to the capacity of all those individuals ; and which, when within their reach, He requires them to use. That proof must be found in the use of some one of the four above-mentioned methods.

Let us examine them severally, and see which is in truth suited to the means and intelligence of men of every condition.

I Is every man, no matter what be his condition and means, capable of investigating by his own labor and research, and duly examining the arguments, that have been or can be alleged for and against the several books which it is asserted are inspired ; and on the strength of that examination, of deciding for himself, with absolute certainty and unerring accuracy, what books are, and what are not inspired? This question, methinks, need not be asked a second time.

The arguments in this course would be of two classes, ex- ternal and internal ; either or both of which would form matter for investigation. He might seek, as you have endeavored to do, whether there exists a sufficient mass of testimony to estab- lish the fact or facts, that God did at certain times, and on cer- tain occasions, exercise over particular writers the supernatural influence of inspiration ; or, from a consideration of the perfec- tion of the Scriptures, he might conclude that they were above the power of unaided men, and therefore must be of divine origin. To perform the first properly, he must be deeply versed in the Latin, the Greek, and the Hebrew, perhaps too, in several modern lancruacres: must have at his command a more extensive library than, I believe, Charleston can boast of; must spend consequently many long years of study in acquiring those lan- guages and obtaining authors, in searching out the thousand and one testimonies scattered through a hundred musty tomes, and in acquiring that thorough knowledge of times, of men, of writings, which will enable him to judge of the credibility of those witnesses — must finally possess an unrivalled, almost super-

APPKNDIX. 3()l

iiuural accuracy of judu^nieiit, to reconcile this mass of condict- ing statements, and distin^uishiiitr wliicli are worthy nnd whicli iinuoriliy of credit — to conclude c(>nlidently and evidently in favor of or against the inspiration of the books examined. The second requires a thorough acquaintance wilii the Scriptures in the original Hebrew, Greek, and Chaldean, and in the ancient versions in Samaritan, Copht, Arabic, Syriac, Greek, and Latin, and with the ancient manuscripts ; and the ability to apply to all this the subtle rules of retined criticism, in order to determine, in the first place, as far as can be ascertained, the exact lan- guage and meaning of the sacred writers; a thorough knowledge of the abilities and acquirements of each writer and the state of science, and already revealed religion in his country and age, in order to see to what extent of perfection his own powers with such aids could naturally carry him ; the faculty also of duly appreciating the beauties of the sacred writings, and that know- ledge of chemistry, of natural history, of geology, of the history of nations, and of almost every science, which may enable him fully and satisfactorily to refute all the objections brought from these different sources against the intrinsic truth, and conse- quently internal evidence, of the divine inspiration of the Scrip- tures. Need I say, it is all important he should be able to pos- sess and peruse the books on whose inspiration he is thus to decide ?

Whether any investigation in cither or botli classes, carried on even under the most favorable circumstances, will unerringly prove the inspiration of any books of the Scri|)ture, 1 leave to be mooted by those who clioose to undertake the task. The Editors of the Miscellany have lately published several articles on the subject, under the he^d, Protestant evidence of the inspiration of Scripture. For my immediate purpose, it is enough to ask you and my readers to reflect for one moment on the past and present condition of the vast majority of those millions who call them- selves Christians; whom God requires to receive the Scriptures, and who consequently have " clear and cogent arguments for their Divine origin." Is it not notorious, the great, the over- whelming majority of Christians have ever been and must con- tinue incapacitated by their position in the world, their want of

:it)2 APPENDIX.

time, of learning, of means, from even attempting Such an inves- tic^ation ? Was it not, for ages before the discovery of the art of printing, morally impossible, on account of the labor and tedioiis- ness of copying such volumes with the pen, their consequent scarcity, and the enormous price at which alone they could be procured, for most individuals to obtain even copies of the Holy Scriptures themselves, much more of those works necessary for such an examination 1 Not to leave our own state, are not more than one-half of her population debarred by law from learning to read? Of the 550,000 souls in South Carolina, think you there are 550 or even 50, who have time, the means, the ability, the opportunity of devoting themselves to this laborious task ?

If every individual is bound to reject the inspiration of a book, until it is clearly and evidently proved to his mind to be inspired, and if such proof can only be obtained through that personal examination, then must the negro and the Indian, and the poor and the unlettered, and the daily laborer toiling from sun-rise to sun-set for his bread, then must the overw helming MAJORITY of Christians reject the Scriptures ; then were ail those, who, deprived of worldly learning, looked in their simplicity to God for saving wisdom, and fondly believed they possessed it in those sacred oracles of truth — I tremble to follow the awful train of thought. Rev. Sir, the Jirst cannot be the method appointed by Almighty God, whereby all should learn with unerring accuracy the inspiration of the Scriptures. Let us take up the second.

II. Is every individual to receit^e books as inspired, or to re- ject them as uninspired, according to the decision of persons he esteems sufficiently qualified by erudition and sound judgment to determine that question accurately ? I apprehend a candid mind can easily answer this question.

Is such a course adapted to «// Christians ? Would it lead them with unerring accuracy to the truth ? If it be the means appointed by Almighty God, both questions must be answered in the affirmative. If common sense and experience show that either or both must be answered negatively, it is not.

Those who possess not learning themselves, can seldom or never form a proper estimate of the learning and critical judg- ment of a truly erudite person whom perhaps they have scarcely

APPENDIX. 3(33

looked on. Whole communities may be deceived on this point. Need I cite the case of Voltaire, once extolled by France and the soi-disant Philosophers of Europe as a very Briarcus of Erudi- tion, and now that in France Religion and Science happily go hand in hand, and execrations o^ Vinfame are no longer passj)orts to celebrity, justly derided as a puny puffed-up smatterer ? The individual thus seeking the light of others, (besides surrenderincr his Protestant privilege of judging for himself, and pinning his faith to their sleeves,) is in most cases unable to judge with cer- tainty and accuracy on the sufficiency of the qualifications of those learned persons, frequently of that single individual, within his limited circle of knowledge. Of the learned in other lands, and of their decisions, he knows nothing. Even did he, you are aware every variety of decisions would be offered him. I cannot be brought to believe, and I am sure you will not ask me to be- lieve, that all erudition and sound judgment is confined to Ger- many, Holland, Great Britain, the United States, Denmark, and Sweden, and is there parcelled out among those who may chance to agree with you in your list of inspired books. I cannot be- lieve, for example, that our lamented Bishop, for whom our tears yet flow, was either unsound in judgment or deficient in erudition. Not to speak of esteemed friends, who, if I err not, are yet un- willing to admit any inspired work, I know many Catholics in the United States, whose talents and years of study render them, as they rendered him, the ornaments of the community in which they move. I believe that " La belle France" and sunny Italy produce many champions who press forward to the van in the cause of science. I know it is the custom of some to rail against those countries as buried in ignorance and darkness, at least in matters of religion. But such language ever recalls forcibly to my mind the fable of the ant, who, till perchance she wandered forth from her hill, thought nothing could be perfect on earth but what met her limited vision within a {c\x yards of her home. Were you. Rev. Sir, to devote a leisure hour or so to examining the biography of those prelates who assisted at the Council of Trent, and whose authority and decisions you so heartily " des- pise," you would find them eminent and worthy of respect for their sincere piety and vast erudition, albeit their decision on the books of Tobit, Judith, &-c., was different from vours.

364 APPENDIX.

If in receiving books as inspired, or not, the ignorant and unlearned are, according to the will of God, to abide by the de- cisions of those learned individuals to whom they have access, or whom in their simplicity they deem qualified to act as their guides, then must we be content to say that God requires some to receive as inspired, and others to reject as uninspired, the same books. The second course seems impracticable. Were it not, it would lead to contradictory conclusions ; and therefore, to error. Such cannot be the means appointed by Divine wis- dom, whereby all the faithful shall truly learn what books of the Scripture are really inspired. Pass we on to the third.

III. Did God ordain that all Christians should learn what Scriptures were divinely inspired, from some individual, whom He commissioned to announce this truth to the world 1 This is the next inquiry which awaits us. If He did, then will the proofs of that commission, and the declaration so made, be such as the mind of every Christian of whatsoever condition can seize.

Our Divine Saviour, taking him simply in his historical character, proved his commission from Heaven by miracles. But He bft no canon or catalogue of inspired works. The Apostles, too, proved their Divine commission. There might be some discussion respecting the works attributed to them ; but neither did they leave a canon in their writings. But did not the Saviour or the Apostles leave such a canon, though unre- corded, to their followers, to be by them transmitted to future generations, and which all are bound to receive? This suppo- sition, besides overturning another fundamental axiom of Protes- tants, that all things necessary to be believed are recorded in the Scriptures, turns over the question to method the first, which I have already disposed of.

After the time of the Apostles, we know of no one who claimed and proved an extraordinary commission from God to establish a canon of Scripture.

Before the coming of Christ, Esdras is said to have established a canon for the use of the Jewish naiion. It has been disputed whether he did so or not ; whether he did so by his own author- ity, or by the authority of God; whether alone, or in conjunction with, and as member of, the Sanhedrim. It has been asserted,

1

APPENDIX. 3()5

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. 1 need not trouble you with my opinions on those different points. More veteran schol- ars than I, have found some of them insoluble enigmas. I ap- prehend 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, as were all the books of the New Tes- tament, so important to Christians, and nearly all the works, the inspiration of which your essay controverts.

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 un- doubtedly commissioned of God, exists; and because in the case of Esdras, the most we can say is, that the substance of the de- claration is tinged with doubt, while the fact that he made it, and his authority for doing so, cannot be ascertained 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 in- spired, 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 rrfpiirrs 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 rstahlish/^y be adapted to all Chris- tians? Would it lead them to truth 1

One of such a body presenting himself to instruct a Christian or an infidel, would first inform him that, a number of years ago, a person, known by the name of Jesus Christ, appeared in Jtidea, and established a new religion. SulHcient motives of credibility can easily be brought forward to induce tho novice to believe

^'66 APPENDIX.

this. He proceeds to state that Christ proved His heavenly com- mission to do so, by frequent, public, and manifest miracles. It will not require much to establish in those works certain striking characteristics of themselves, clearly indicative of a miraculous nature. Hence common sense is forced to conclude that the religion established by Christ was divine, 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 se- cure the extension of his religion to every people, and its perpet- uation to the end of time, selected from among his followers cer- tain persons, who, with their successors, were, in his name, and by the same authority he possessed, to go forth and teach all nations all that he had himself taught in Judea.* Such a dele- gation is by means nnnatural 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 as- sured them that they would be opposed, that others would rise up to teach errors, whom he sent not, and that some of their own num- ber would fall away ; but thai God would recall to their minds all things he had taught them,t that He would send them the Spirit of Truth, who should abide with them forever, :|; and should teach them all truth, § that He himself would be with them while fulfilling that commission, all days, even to the con- summation of the world, II and that the gates of hell, the fiercest conflicts of enemies, should never prevail against that churchlj which he sent them to found and ever to instruct. 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 univer- sally acknowledged and can easily be substantiated.

" All this," replies the novice, " my own common sense

* Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. t .Tohn xiv. 26. X .Tohn xiv. 16, 17.

§ John xiv. 26 : xvi. 1.3. |! Matt, xxviii. 20. If Matt. xvi. 18.

APPENDIX. ;J6T

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 cvery-day life. It would be straiifre, indeed, that while men change and contradict every thing else, they should not seek to change and contradict God's doctrines and precepts too. If He willed that the religion of Christ ahould endure always, that is, that the doctrines He revealed should be ever preached and believed, the precepts 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 sent by the Father, that provision must evidently and necessarily be directed to preserve the purity of their teaching, 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.' Unaided reason almost assures 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 teachers, thus guaranteed to teach all truth, ' forever,' ' 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 power; that at the present day it consists of such individuals, of whom he is a commissioned teach- er. If asked, he would probably be able to point out the prede- cessors 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 luigi^^ state that 175,000,000 of every nation, from New ZetiUmii to China, from Van Diemen's land to the Canadian lu'i'-'ns, from the Cape of Good Hope to Siberia, admit and gul>K^-t themselves to this authority ; that this immense multitude is owing to no sudden increase, but that millions on nu/iions in every age have done the same. The novice wiiJ:ht inquire, whether the predictions concerning persecutions and error had yet been ful- filled. In answer, the past and present persecutions mii^'ht be

368 APPENDIX.

laid before him, and the longj list of those who in various aaes opposed the teaching of that body by every imaginable shade of error, but with all their efforts 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 pow- ers 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 warred in Gaul, afterwards turned his arms against his country, overcame Pompey, and finally met his death from assas- sination. An appeal is made to that principle implanted in the human mind by its Creator, and among the earliest to be devel- oped, 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 God has given it, all I have proposed and the doctrines delivered in consequence, long before it would dream of asking evidence for authority to teach ; and when reason is sufficiently developed to receive motives of credibility, they are already at hand. 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 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 mo- tives of human authority would produce. In this system, there is no room for that awful, but necessary, inevitable consequence ofthe axioms of Protestants, and of your own principles, that in

APPENDIX. 3(59

the life of every individual, there should be a dark void of infidel- ity and unbelief; from the time wh«H|^ having attained the use of reason, he is able, and most solemnly bound before his Maker, to judge for himself, until the time when clear and cogent arfru- ments for the inspiration 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 unproved 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 produc- tions,' ' having no more authori ty than Seneca's Letters, or Tully's Offices.' In this interval he is without an inspired Bible, and con.se- quently 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, unless ' he runs the risk of everlasting damnation?') to live a perfect Infidel! I know that this statement will startle, many of my readers — that you will disavow it. I do not charge Protestants with holding the absurdity ; for none, as far as I know, have avowed it tulidcm vprbis. I see, however, a partial admission in the practice of many Protestants to let their children grow up without much reli- crious instruction, because in future years they have to examine and judge for themselves. Still this conclusion, however absurd and awful, (as you have not advanced it, I may without infring- ing the rules of courtesy, add) however blasphemous, is the ne- cessary, unavoidable consequence of your premises. Such an in- ference cannot follow from tuutii.

This fourth method is not repugnant to the nature of rdi- aion : for all true religion is based on submission of tli<- under- standing and the will to God, when He speaks to w*-' himsell ; to his authorized dele^rates, when tiirough them Uo «ieigns to leach. Had He appointed it, that body of individuals so commissioned, would evidently teach truth.

The fourth method alone is tln-refore both practicable in the ordinary condition of the Christian world, and etiicirnt.

Does there exist a bo<Jy of men clothed with thi.^ nuthority

370 APPENDIX.

guaranteed by such a divine promise from error ? Has it made a declaration setting forth, in pursuance of that authority, what works are truly inspired ?

You, Rev. Sir, are forced to the alternative of either an- swerincr both questions in the affirmative, or of saying that the overwhelming majority of Christians are " solemnly bound" to reject the Scriptures ; and if they jiave 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, I might here develope those arguments on the subject which I referred to in the beginning of this letter. Those who are desirous of investiga- ting this question of vital importance to every sincere Christian, I refer to Wiseman' 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 contradiction.

Which then is that body? The Pastors of the Catholic church claim to compose it. No other body claims that commis- s.ion. Leaving aside an appeal to the historical evidence of con- tinued succession from the Apostles, and other arguments bear- ing on the subject, common sense tells us, that if God has in- vested 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 Coun- cil of Trent, the Christian world has its authorized declaration.

But why delay for fifteen centuries and a half this necessary, all important proof? Why leave the world for such a length of time without this evidence of the inspiration of the Scripture ? I deny that the delay took place. In order that the sentiments of a community be known by those who move within its bosom, or have intercourse with its members, it is not necessary that these should assemble in a public meeting and set forth their opinions in a preamble and resolutions. So, too, the doctrines of the Catholic church can be known by the universal and concor- dant teaching of her pastors, even when her bishops have not assembled in a general council and embodied those doctrines in

APPENDIX. 371

a list of decrees. When general councils are held, it is, on the head of doctrine, merely to declare and define wliat doctrines have ever been taught and believed in tlie church. This is what the Council of Trent did on the canon of Scriptures.

The Apostles left to the infant church those inspired works which Catholics now hold. They were universally used, except- ing perhaps in a few churches, for whose variations I shall ac- count when treating of your second argument. After a number 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 in- spired, or some merely as pious and instructive works. Other works, too, were protruded as inspired, and some seemed to ob- tain partial circulation. An expression of the belief of the body of pastors 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 acqui- esced ; and for a thousand years no objection of any importance was made. After that period arose Protestantism. Luther and his followers denounced many books, not those alone you con- trovert, but others also which you revere as inspired, in terms compared to which even your essay is courteous. Some Catho- lics, too, seemed to think the former decision had not been sutli- ciently explicit; and therefore the Bishops at Trent, assisted by the most learned divines, canonists and scholars, after every pos- sible research 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 church as inspired, and should therefore be still revered as sacred and canonic.W. These different assertions I shall sustain by due authority "hen I answer your second argument.

But many objections have been urged againsf the truth ol that decision. I ask you, Rev. Sir, is there any doctrine of rev- elation against which many arguments h-ivc not been urged ? Have not the very existence of God and his Unity been assail- ed ? Have not the mysteries of the Trinity, of the Incarnation of the Son, and every doctri/ie of Christianity been attacked? The fact therefore of opposition is no disproof Nor is it ne-

372 APPENDIX.

cessary for the true believer to be able to answer every cavil or sophism. Surely the negro cannot answer, cannot even compre- hend, 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 doc- trine because he declares it to be true, we are bound to obey un- conditionally. Common sense tells us that every objection to it must be based on error, even though we be unable to point it ont. And so too a Catholic relies on the authorized decision of his church concerning the inspired writings with surety, classing all the objections urged thereagainst, with the numberless other objections urged in like manner against every truth of Divine revelation, against the Deity himself, which, according to his degree of knowledge, he may or may not be able to refute, but which he knows by a priori evidence of the strongest character must be false.

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 arrogance," was a decision, with the divine authority for which, and therefore its truth, the inspi- ration of the Scriptures for the vast majority of Christians, and consequently on Protestant principles, Christianity itself must stand of fall.

After thus establishing the absolute necessity of admitting that authority, which you impugn, and showing the frightful con- sequences of a contrary course — consequences, from which, I am certain, you will shrink — I might rest satisfied that I have ful- ly 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 actual- ly required." " With the distinct understanding, then, that I am doing a work, which justice to our cause does not absolutely re- quire," but which places the truth, not in a former position but in a stronger light, I will proceed in my next to notice those ar- guments you so confidently term " irresistible." Meanwhile

I remain, Rev. Sir,

Yours, &bc.

A. P. F.

APPENDIX. 373

Letter II

To the Rev. James H, Thornwell, Professor of the Evidences of Chris- tianity^ 6{c.

Rev. Sir: — In the introductory 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, Baruchivith 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 authority of the Council of Trent in behalf of the inspiration of those books and parts of books. You have scarcely given us the credit of advancing a single argument in corrobora- tion of the truth of that decree. " A candid and unprejudiced mind" would, methinks, have desired from you at least a full and fair statement of what reasons we do bring forward. Your po- sition 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 impartial, '* thinkincr mind," even thoucrh he knew nothincr of the Catholic view of the question, would see that yours is completely an ultra party exposition of the case, and that, before forming his deci- sion, common prudence requires him to hear the other side. I trust that my letters may foil into the hands of some such.

In my first, I treated of the authority of the decree of the Council of Trent, which declared those works ** sacred and ca- nonical ;" and showed by a line of argument, which, although not conclusive to an infidel, must be so to every Christian, be- cause based on the very nature of Christianity, that in the de- cree itself we had clear and cogent proof of their inspiration. I argued thus: No man can be called on to believe \\hat is not sustained by adequate proof Hence, when God proposes any truth for the belief of man, he sustains it by adequate proof His own Divine veracity would fully constitute that proof for the in- dividual to whom he sj)eaks. For others it is necessary that the additional fact, that God did reveal his truth to tliat individual,

374 APPENDIX. .

be also sustained by adequate proof. Nothing deserves that name, which cannot 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 an- nounced, 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 revelation 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 every class and con- dition and clime, because of that communication. Of this com- munication there does, therefore, there must exist adequate proof for all such persons. There can be but four methods of obtain- ing that proof, three of which we saw must be rejected, and the fourth consequently admitted.

The first, a personal examination by each individual of the arguments, historical or intrinsic, in favor and against the in- spiration of the Scripture, even if such an examination would ever lead to a certain result, could not be admitted, because the overwhelming majority of Christians are prevented from institut- ing that examination, by the duties and the circumstances of that condition in which Divine Providence has placed them. The second, that the learned should decide for and be followed by the unlearned, would lead some to error, as some of the learned thus to be followed have decided erroneously. The third, that all Christians should learn what books are in reality inspired from some individual commissioned by Almighty God to announce this truth to the world, was, as we saw, untenable, for the simple reason that no such declaration from an individual thus commis- sioned, exists. We were forced, therefore, to admit the fowth^ that all Christians should learn what books compose the divinely inspired Scripture from a body of individuals whom God has au- thorized to decide on that point, and guarantees from error in so deciding. We saw that this method was feasible, adapted to the capacity and condition of every Christian, and consonant with

APPENDIX. 375

the essence of religion, //"adopted, it would certainly lead to truth. In one word, it alone was feasible and effective. It fnust, therefore, be admitted, unless we say that the overwhelmino- ma- jority of Christians are " solemnly bound," unless " they run the risk of everlasting damnation," to reject tiie inspiration of the Scriptures, and be, on Protestant principles, perfect infidels — unless we overturn Christianity itself. The Pastors of the Cath- olic Church ALONE claim to compose that body. They, there- fore, DO compose it. Their decisions on the question of inspi- ration are guaranteed by Almighty God from error. They have numbered the books you controvert among the inspired Scrip- tures. Therefore those books are ** sacred and canonical.'^

I conceive that I have thus satisfactorily discharged the onus probandi. As I said above, Catholics corroborate this decree by many other arguments, improbable as this may appear to those who look on your essay as a fair and candid exposition of the state of this controversy. This might be the most proper place for introducing them. But as, in order to develope them fully, I would have to say much which I should again repeat in answer- ing your ** irresistible" arguments, I will defer doing so just now ; and will proceed to test the force of those same " irresistible" arguments.

The first you state in the following words : — " I. Our first argument is drawn from the indisputable fact that these books were not found in the canon of the Jews in the time of our Saviour and his Apostles. It is even doubted by learned men, whether some of them existed at all until some time after the Apostles had fallen asleep. But be this as it may, they were not in the sacred canon of the Jews, or the catalogue of books which the whole nation received as cominor from God. We have very clear testimony upon the subject of the Jewish canon, in Josephus, Philo, the Talmud and the early Christian Fathers. It is unnecessary to quote these testimonies at full length. Those who have not access to the original works, may find them faithfully collated in Srlnnidius dr. Canone Sacro, and ihc Kir hhorn's Kinlntuuir. We would particularly commend to the reader's attention llornnnann's book dr (,'anunr Philonis. Augustine again and again confesses that the Apocrypha formed

876 APPENDIX.

no part of the Jewish canon. He declares that SoJomon was not the author of the books of EcGlesiasticus and Wisdom, and assures us, moreover, that those books were chiefly respected by the Western €lhristians. He informs us that Judith was not re- ceived by the Jews; and his testimony in relation to Maccabees is equally decisive. We insist upon the testimony of Augustine, which may be found in his Treatise De Civ. Dei, lib. i. c. 17, because he had evidently a very great respect for these books — for he frequently quotes them, and because he was a member of the body whose decisions in their favor have been strongly and earnestly pleaded. We take it, then, to be a fact which no scholar would think of calling into question, sustained by the concurring testimony of Jews and Christians for four hundred years after Christ, that the Jews rejected the Apocrypha from their canon. For the purpose of our present argument it is not necessary to show what books they did receive, nor how they classed and arranged them. It is enough that they had a canon which they believed to be inspired, and that in it the Apocrypha iDcre not included.

" Now our argument is this : Jesus Christ and his Apostles ap- proved of the Jewish canon, whatever it was; appealed to it as possessing Divine authority; and evidently treated it as at that time complete, or as containing the whole of God's revelation as far as it was then made. If the Apocrypha had been really a part of that revelation, and the Jews had either ignorantly or wickedly suppressed it, how comes it that Christ nowhere re- bukes them for their error % We find him severely inveighing against the Pharisees for adding to the Word of God by their vain traditions^ but not a syllable do we hear in regard to what was equally culpable, their taking from it, which they certainly had done if the Apocrypha were inspired. Here was confess- edly a great teacher and prophet in Israel — their long-expected Messiah, who constituted the burden of their Scriptures accord- ing to his own testimony : and yet, while he quotes and approves the canon of the Jews, and remands the Jews themselves to their own Scriptures, he nowhere insinuates that their sacred library was defective. If the Jews had done wrong in rejecting the Apocrypha, is it credible that he who came in the name of

APPENDIX. 3*7

God — a teacher sent Irom God to reveal fully the Divine will, would have passed over without noticing such a flagrant fraud ? We find him reproving his countrymen for every other cor- ruption in regard to sacred things of which they are known to have been guilty, but not a whisper escapes his lips or the lips of his Apostles touching this gross suppression of a large portion of the Word of God, The conclusion is irresistible, that neither Jesus nor his Apostles believed in the Divine authority of the Apocrypha — they knew that they loere not inspired. We will errant the Romanist what he cannot prove, and what loc can disprove, that these books are quoted in the New Testament. This will not remove the difficulty. According to his views of the canon, the Jews were guilty of an outrageous fraud in regard to the Sacred Oracles, and yet neither Christ nor his Apostles, whose business it was to give us the zohole revelation of God, ever charged them with this fraud, or took any steps to restore the re- jected books to their proper places. Christ, as the great Prophet of the church, was unfaithful to his high and solemn trust, if he stood silently by when the Word of God was trampled in the dust or buri'ed in obscurity, or even robbed of its full authority. To the Jews were committed the Oracles of God (Rom. iii. 2) ; if they betrayed their trust, we ought to have been infcxrmed of it before the lapse of sixteen centuries.

" It is vain to allege that Christ and his Apostles used the Septuagint, and that this version contained the Apocrypha. In the first place, it cannot be proved that the Septuagint at that time did contain the Apocrypha ; in the second place, if it did contain them, the difiiculty is rather increased than lessened. The question is, What books did the Jews, to whom were com- mitted the Oracles of God, receive as inspired ? Did Christ know that they rejected the Apocrypha from the list of inspired writings ? If so, and the Septuagint version was in his hands and really contained these rejected books, what more natural than that Christ should have told his Apostles that here are books which the Jews reject, but which you must receive — they are of equal authority with the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms ? His total silence both before the Jews and his own di.scipIos, be- comes more unaccountable than ever, if the books were actually

n*

378 APPENDIX,

before him and almost forced upon his notice by the version of the Scriptures which he used. But we do not insist upon this, because we do not believe that the Septuagint, at that time, con- tained the Apocrypha.* If it should be said that the Jews re- ceived these 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 Priests and Rulers, at least to his own Apostles 1

" Upon every view of the subject, then, the silence of Christ is wh«>lly unaccountable, if these writings are really inspired. It becomes simple and natural upon the supposition that they were merely human productions. The Jews had done right in reject- ing them — they stood upon a footing with other literary works, and our Saviour had no more occasion to mention them than he had to mention the writings of the Greek Philosophers."

Now, Rev. Sir, you say that a Canon is not an inspired book, but a list or catalogue of inspired works. You lay down the proposition, which I admit, that at the time of the Saviour the Jewish Synagogue had such a canon, and that the books you controvert were not included therein. There might be some dis- cussion as to part of what you exclude, but I will not argue the point. Even be it, if you will, that during the preaching of the Saviour, not one of the books or parts of books, the inspiration of which you deny, was included in the canon of the Synagogue of Jerusalem.

You then make the four following assertions:

1. That the Jews " rejected" those books from their canon in such a manner as, were they in truth inspired, to be guilty of an outrageous fraud in regard to the *' Sacred Oracles."

2. That " the Saviour and his Apostles approved of the Jewish canon."

3. That they " appealed to it as possessing divine authority."

4. That they " evidently treated it as complete, or as contain- ing the whole of God's revelation, as far as it was then made,"

Now, Rev. Sir, in regard to the last three points I notice a very serious oversight in your essay. You have entirely forgotten

* Vid. Schmidius de Canone.

APPENDIX. 379

or omitted to allege, or even by note to refer to, a single passage of the New Testament, wherein the Saviour or the Apostles speaks at all of the canon of the Jews. They refer to the Scriptures generally and to particular books, they quote from them, but there is not in the whole New Testament a single passage showing that Christ and his Apostles ever refcrcd to the canon, catalogue, or list of inspired books held among the Jews, much less treated that catalogue as complete, and " containing the whole of God's Revelation, as far as then made."

But what you cannot sustain by an appeal to the words of the Saviour or of the Apostles, you seek to establish by inference. If those works are, as the Council of Trent declared them to be, in reality divinely inspired, the Jewish nation, in not admitting them into their canon, ** betrayed their trust," were guilty of " fraud," ** trampled in the dust, or buried in obscurity, or even robbed of its full authority" the word of God, were " guilty of an outrageous fraud in regard to the Sacred Oracles." '* It was the business of Christ and his Apostles to give us the whole reve- lation of God." .Consequently, in that case they "would have charged the Jews with this fraud, or taken some steps to restore the rejected books to their proper places." He did not; neither did his Apostles. Therefore those books are not inspired, are of *' no more authority than Seneca's Letters or Tully's OfTices," and the Jewish canon, which did not contain them, was then " complete," and was treated as such by the Saviour and Apos- tles. This, if I understand you, is the pith of your argument; ill which, by the by, yt)ur tiiird assertion is still left entirely un- supi)orted.

Before answering this argument, allow me to make a few pre- liminary observations.

1st. That there is great difference between not inserting a work really inspired, in a Canon, because there is not requisite j)ro()f to establish its inspiration, or sunicient authority to insert it; and rejecting it, when that proof and authority both exist. The first course is proper — to insert a book under such circum- stances would be criminal. The second deserves all the terms you use. The first was the case of the Jews. Without a shadow of proof therefor, you charge them with the second, if those

380 APPENDIX.

works are inspired. In your argument this distinction seems not to have struck you, or you have kept it out of sight until the end. You admit it, however, tov.^ards the close, when you say: "If it should be said that the Jews received those books as yj- spired, but did not insert them in the canon, because they had not the authority of a prophet for doing so," etc.

2d. In case those books were in reality inspired, though not inserted in the Jewish canon, it would have been sufficient for the Saviour or the Apostles to place them among the divinely inspired books of the church. This I think evident to every Christian, You seem to admit it, also, when you ask : '' Why is it that Christ did not give the requisite authority, if not to the Jewish Rulers and Priests, at least to his own Apostles'?"

3d. Christ and his Apostles might have said much in regard to the Scriptures and inspired books, which is not recorded in the New Testament. I cannot quote higher and fuller authority than the New Testament itself. " But there are also many other things which Jesus did ; which if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written." John xxi. 25. " To whom (the Apos- tles) also he (Jesus) showed himself alive after his passion by many proofs, for forty days appearing to them, and speaking of the kingdom of God." Acts i. 3. "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have received, whether by word or by our Epistle." 2 Thess. ii. 14. I might quote other texts, but my remark is evidently true. Did not the Apostles change the Jewish Sabbath for the Lord's day, making this a day of rest consecrated to God, and abrogating the first ? Where will you find that in the New Testament ? This, too, you seem to allow is possible, as you begin your second argument with the following words : " If it should be pretended that Christ did give his Apostles authority to receive these books, though no record was made of the fact, we ask," etc.

4tli. I might also make another remark. Supposing those works inspired, as I contend they are, but not admitted at the Saviour's time into the Jewish canon, it was not, strictly speaking, necessary that either Christ or the Apostles should testify person- ally to their inspiration. If the Saviour established a body of

AI*PENDIX. 'i^l

men, who, by his authority and under the guidance of His Holy Spirit of Truth, were to decide that question, which, as I showed in Letter I., we are ncce.^arily bound to admit, the decision of such a body at any subsequent period would be amply sulhcient. The Christian world would have had, in the mean limc, many other divinely inspired works. If God was not pleased to give any inspired works to the children of Israel before Moses, nor to inspire the prophets till a far later period, surely it would be the height of presumption in us now to lay down rifles to Him, pre- scribing lohcn he should inspire a work or establish its inspiration. This is more evident, when we consider that the Jews had, and the Christians must still have, some method of truly and satisfactorily ascertaining the truths of Revelation, other than the simple perusal of all the inspired works. In regard to the Jews, this is evident, and is allowed by themselves. That Christians, too, have such a mode, (a doctrine you are aware Catholics hold^) is shown to be necessarily true by a train of argument similar to that of my preceding letter, and equally cogent.' Surely the 300,000 negroes in South Carolina prohibited by law from being taught to read, cannot learn much from the perusal of the Scrip- tures. Must they therefore remain ignorant of the truths of Christianity? Again, has God ever declared that he will never inspire another work? And if He has not limited his omnipo- tence, shall we dare to place bounds to it? Now, in point of fact, as far as the Christian world is concerned, there would be little if any dilTerence between His inspiring a work 500, 1,000, or 2,000 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 inspired writings, to certain laws and times, as you seem to do, that have no founda- tii)n in truth. The Saviour came, if you will, to give us the whole Revelation of God, that is, all the doctrinal tnitli> of that revelation, but not all the inspired works; for not one of the books of the New Testament was written until years after his cru- cifixion. St. John wrote the last after the year 90. Alany early Christians thought that the Pastor of Hermes, written many years

382 APPENDIX.

still later, was inspired. They were mistaken ; 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 inspired books.

With these prefatory observations, I take up your argument as simply stated above, and meet it by answering, that when the Jewish synagogue did not admit those works into the canon, it was because of the want of proof of their inspiration, and per- haps want of authority to amend an already duly established canon ; and that therefore they were not guilty of the heinous sin you lay at their door: and, secondly, 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 Christians as divinely in- spired works; and it is in consequence of those steps, that the Catholic church has ever held them as inspired, and the Council of Trent enumerated them in the list of ''Sacred and Canon- ical" works.

The distinction laid down in my first remark, completely nul- lifies your argument. In order to convict the Jews of an " out- rageous fraud in regard to the sacred oracles," if those works are inspired, you should show, not only that those works were not inserted in the national canon, but also that when a work was in- spired, sufficient proof thereof was ever offered under the syna- gogue, and that there also ever existed some individual or body of men who had authority to act on such proof, and to amend accord- ingly that national canon. Need I say that in your dissertation we look in vain for any thing establishing either of those points? The only remark bearing on them is that already refered 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 priests 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 argu- ment laid down in my previous letter, and I will further sustain it by historical evidence. But even had He done nothing direct- ly or indirectly, recorded or unrecorded, on the matter, the only

APPENDIX. 38;3

legitimate consequence would be tluit 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 inevitable consequence. Were not the vision of Addo, and other works I will mention below, in- spired, 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 important to the validity of your argument. These, Rev. Sir, you have assumed without any show of reason or authority. Your argument is valueless, and crumbles under its own " irresistible " weiijht.

I might here dismiss this part of your essay, as the onus was certainly on you to prove every thing necessary to make your argument conclusive. However, even though it be something "over and above" what jiustice to my cause "absolutely re- quired," I will lay before our readers a few remarks on the na- tional 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, 2(3,) 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 appear to designate the book of Deuter- onomy alone, and certainly it does not follow from the words used, that Moses, in writinsr that volume, received the supernat- ural assistance of Divine Inspiration. But I am willing to admit that the entire Pentateuch was even in that early period known to be inspired, and was used in the public services, though this last, 1 think, cannot be proved. Moses died in the year 1447 before Christ, according to Calmct. Esdras returned to Jeru- salem from the Babylonian captivity, 4G2, B. C. During this period of nearly 1000 years, many inspired 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 the Seer, that of Nathan the prophet, and of Gad the

:3S4

APPENDIX.

Seer,* containing accounts not found in our Bible, the books of Ahias the Silonite, and the vision of Addo the Seer,t the books of Semeias the Prophet, | and the words of Hozai;§ and might easily swell the catalogue. All those works, extant or lost, were in all probability known to be inspired by the cotemporaries of the several writers, but we have nothing to lead us to suppose that durincr all this time an exact cataloaue or canon of them was formed b)^ national or Divine authority. In the year 970 B. C, after many of them were written, the ten tribes separated from the kingdom of Judah, not a few of the Israelites retaining the true faith. After they were borne into captivity, and other nations introduced into their country, these new comers were instructed by an Israelite priest how they should worship the Lord : but for some time they joined therewith heathen profani- ties and idolatry. These, however, 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 in- spired. It would appear, then, that at the time of the sejJaration of the children of Israel under Uplioboam, no canon had been yet drawn up by due authority.

This is more evident if we advert to the fact that all the Jew- ish writers attribute the formation of their canon to the Cheneseth Gliedolah, or great Synagogue, after the captivity of Babylon, of which Esdras was a principal member. According to the testi- mony of the Rabbins generally, this synagogue commenced under Darius Hystaspes, and ended in Simon, surnamed the Just, high priest under Seleucus Nicanor. All agree in placing it between those two extremes, and some restrict it, at least in its flourishing condition, to a much shorter space. It seems gen- erally to be allowed that the greater part of the duty in regard to the Sacred writings devolved on Esdras himself, who expur- gated the Sacred works from the various faults into which copy- ists had fallen, and collected them all into one body, introduced

* 1 Paralip. or 1 Chron. xxix. .30.

t 2 Paralip. or 2 Chron ix. 29 ; xii. 15 ; xiii. 22.

\ 2 Paralip. or 2 Chron. xii. 15.

§ 2 Paralip. or 2 Chron. xxxiii. 19.

AFPENDIX. :i«5

the Jewish divisions of I^cri.</iut, Sidariiii, and I'tshuut, and arranged the whole into books. It would seem, too, and ii is generally admitted, that various additions wereniade; such as the conclusion of the books of Deuteronomy concerning the death of Moses. Grotius thought that the inscriptions and dates at the beginning of the prophecies, originated here too. But I do not see why we need go so far, as it was natural that the original writers should place 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 re- cension of the Scripture and formation of the canon, the Jews generally attributed it to the Chcncacth Gludolah, or great syna- gogue, as in the treatise Mcgldllah, third chapter of the Ghe- mara, they say this synagogue restored the pristine purity of the Scriptures, and in Baba hathra, chap. 1, that the men of the great synagogue wrote the book of the twelve prophets, and the books of Daniel and Esther. Eliasthe Levite, and other learned Rabbins, treat the whole work as that of the svnairoirue. Per- haps we would not be fa* from the truth in saying that Esdras, as member of the Sanhedrin, revised the copies of the sacred writings, restored the true reading, collected the scattered parts of the Psalms, as the author of the Synopsis of Scripture, some- times attributed to St. Athanasius, and St. Hilary (Prol. in Psalm.) say, the detached Proverbs, and the other scattered parts, and arranged the whole in a body ; and that^the synagocrue itself authoritatively sanctioned the work, thus establishing a national canon. In this plan we must admit that some other books were superadded at a posterior date, by the same syna- gogue. In arriving at a decision on the formation of this canon, we have to guide ourselves, not by the infallible unvarying state- ments of inspired writers, but by the perplexed, sometimes con- tradictory, and often nearly valueless statements of historians who wrote long afterwards. One thing is certain, the canon was closed after the admission of the book of Nehemiah. No evi- dence 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, care- fully weighed, would lead to the opinion I have stated.

386 APPENDIX.

What were the ideas of the Jews on this subject at the time of the Saviour, may be learned from the following passage of Jo- sephus Flavius, in his first book against Appion. After stating in the sixth chapter that the ancient Jews took great care about writing records of their history, and that they committed that matter to their high priests and their prophets, and that those re- cords had been written all along down to his own times with the utmost acccuracy : and in the seventh, that the best of the priests and those who attended upon the divine worship, were appoint- ted from the beginning for that design, and that great care was taken that the race of the priests should continue unmixed 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 disagreement in what is written ; they being only pro- phets that have written the original and earliest accounts of things, as they learned them of God himself by inspiration ; and others have written what hath happened in their own times, and that in a very distinct manner also. ^'

" For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from, and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past time; which are justly believed to be divine. And of them, five belong to Moses, which contain his laws, and the traditions of the oricrin of mankind till his death. This interval of time from the death of Moses till the reicrn of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the pro- phets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very par- ticularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an ex- act succession of prophets since that time. And how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation, is evident by what we do ; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one hath been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them."

APPENDIX. 38?

From this it appears that there were among the Jews at our Saviour's time two classes of books which were deemed worthy of respect, their canonical works and others *' not esteemed of the like authority.'' In the Jewish writers we hnd two degrees of inspiration designated, which they term barrahh haqqadush and bebet qol. In both they recognise an assistance of God, and say that the books of their canon attained the first rank, while the second degree only was attained by writers after it was com- pleted. I may refer you to the Talmud, Babn Cama, chap. Hacliobel, where the work of Ben Sirah, as they style Ecchsi- asticus, R declared thus inspired. St. Jerome in his preface to Judith expressly states that the work is classed by the Jews among the Hagiographa* or sacred writings, not of the first class, for he elsewhere states that they were not in the Jewish canon, but consequently in the second. The books of Tobias, Judith and the Maccabees evidently fall under the class specially mentioned by Josephus.

I do not feel it necessary, Rev. Sir, to dwell at length on this topic, as you have merely assumed, without any proof, that the Jews rejected as uninspired, mere human productions, all books not contained in their canon.

The Jewish writers declare that their national canon was closed and sealed by the Great Synagogue; and that books written afterwards attained a lower degree of inspiration. What authority they thought necessary and suflicient to amend that canon, I have never met laid down by any one of them. They seem to presuppose that no such authority existed in fact. Nor do they treat of the evidence suflicient to establish the inspira- tion of a work. We must conclude, then, that those works were never brought before a competent tribunal of the Jewish nation, with sufficient evidence, if they were inspired, to prove it, and yet were rejected. Nevertheless, all this must bo proved: it must be established that such a tribunal did exist; that those works whose inspiration you controvert, were laid before it;

* Some copies have Apocrypha, but Jahn, after n critical exninination of the authorities, decidfs that Hagiograjjlm is llie true original reading, and the other a posterior change.

388 APPENDIX.

that if they were mspired, sufficient evidence to prove the fact was and must have been brought forward ; and finally that the tribunal rejected the evidence, condemned the books, and re- fused to admit them into the canon. This you have not endea- vored to establish. Had you endeavored, you would have failed, for you would have found the monuments of history arrayed against you. And yet it should have been established before you could reasonably assert that in regard to these books, if they are inspired, the Jewish nation had been '' guilty of an outra- geous fraud on the Sacred Oracles," and that consequently they would have merited and received a severe rebuke from the Sa- viour, which rebuke the Evangelists were bound to insert in their Gospels.

But, Rev. Sir, even had the Jews been in reality thus hei- nously guilty, was the Saviour bound to rebuke them? Did not the Sadducees and Samaritans criminally reject as uninspired, treat merely as human productions, all the inspired works ex- cept the Pentateuch or five books of Moses ? We know that He his and Apostles conversed with them, opposed and condemned their errors; but where did He charge them with this heinous fraud ? Or even had He rebuked the Jews, I cannot see ^hy the Evangelists were bound to record it more than " all the other things that Jesus did," or all his discourses with his apos- tles for forty days after his resurrection. It surely would have been enough to condemn and correct the outrageous fraud of the Jews, had any been committed, to leave the books they omitted to the ^church which He founded; and for us it would be enough, if we can know this with certainty. This leads me to the second part of my answer to your argument. Did the Saviour and his Apostles leave those books and parts of books to the early Christians, as inspired works ?

My first reply would be based on the principles of my last letter. There must be a sure method whereby the wearied little sweep, who now cries under my window, who has trudged the streets since early dawn, and ere another hour will bury his limbs in balmy sleep, preparing for to-morrow's task, can answer that question as confidently and as accurately as you. Rev. Sir, whom years of study have made conversant with ancient Ian-

APPENDIX. 380

guages, and who have libraries at hand and leisure to pore over the tomes of other days. That method is the teaching of the Catholic church, divinely guaranteed from error. Were ho to ask me, to that church and her testimony I would refer him ; and if reason and common sense prove aught, you must admit that the answer he would receive at her hands would be uner- ring.

Yoi* require positive proofs from history of the fact, and I am ready to bring them forward. We have, as I stated — and your argument is based on the acknowledgment — no record in the New Testament of the books the Apostles or the Saviour did leave to their followers as inspired. They refer to the Scrip- tures in general, and quote or allude to particular passages, but have nowhere drawn up a list of the Scriptural works. The evidence must manifestly be drawn from the history of the church, whence too you in your second argument have endea- voured to extract proofs for your cause. As I intend following the divisions of your essay, I will reserve the testimonies of the early Christian writers for my next letter.

Now that the difficulty you imagined so unconquerable, the fraud of the Jews and the necessity for its recorded condemna- tion, has vanished, you will probably retract your concession : " We will grant " the Catholic " what he cannot prove, and what ivc can disprove, that these books are quoted in the New Testament." It was certainly easier and more prudent to pass by this argument in the manner you have done, than to disprove it, as you assert you can. I will lay before you some of the texts of the New Testament, in which the passages of those works are quoted or referred to.

1. " See thou never do to another what thou wouldst hate to have done to thee by another." Tob. iv. Hi. '* All things, therefore, whatsoever, you would that men should do to you, do you also to them." Matt. vii. \2. "And as you would that men should do to you, do you also to them in like manner." Luke vi. 31.

2. " Happy shall I be, if there shall remain of my seed, to see the glory of Jerusalem. The gates of Jerus:dem shall be built of sapphire and emerald, ami all the walls thereof round about

390 APPENDIX.

of precious stones. All its streets shall be paved with white and clean stones : and Alleluia shall be sun^ in its streets. Blessed be the Lord who hath exalted it, and may he reign in it for ever and ever, Amen." Tobias xiii. 20, 23.

" And the building of the wall thereof was of jasper stone, but the city itself pure gold, like to clear glass. And the foun- dation of the walls of the city were adorned with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper, the second, sapphire .... the twelfth, an amethyst. And the twelve gates are twelve pearls, one to each : and every several gate was of one several pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass." Apocalypse or Rev. xxi. 18, 21.

3. ** But they that did not receive the trials with the fear of the Lord, but uttered their impatience, and the reproach of their murmuring against the Lord, were destroyed by the destroyer, and perished by serpents." Judith viii. 24, 25.

" Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them tempted and perished by the serpents. Neither do you murmur, as some of them murmured, and were destroyed by the destroyer." 1. Cor. X.9, 10.

4. " The just shall shine, and shall run to and fro like sparks among the reeds." Wisdom iii, 7. " Then shall the just shine as the sun, in the kingdom of their Father." Matt. xiii. 43.

5. " They (the just) shall judge nations and rule over people, and their Lord shall reign forever." Wisdom iii. 8. " Know you not that the Saints shall judge this world?" 1 Cor. vi. 2.

6. " He pleased God and was beloved, and living among sin- ners he was translated." Wisdom iv. 10. " By faith, Henoch was translated that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had translated him. For before his translation, he had testimony that he pleased God." Heb. xi. 5.

7. " For she (Wisdom) is the brightness of Eternal Light and the unspotted mirror of God's Majesty, and the image of his goodness." Wisdom vii. 26. " Who (the Son of God) being the brightness of his glory and the figure of his substance, &:<c." Heb. i. 3. See also 2 Cor. iv. 4, and Col. i. v.

8. " For who amonor men is he that can know the counsel of God? or who can think what the will of God is?" Wisdom ix.

APPENDIX. 391

1:3. " For who linth known the mind of tlie Lord ? or wlio hath been his counsellor?" Rom. xi. 34.

9. "The potter, also, tempering soft earth, with labor fasli- ioneth every vessel for our service; and of the same clay he maketh such vessels as are for clean uses, and likewise such as serve to the contrary ; but what is the use of these vessels, the potter is the judge." Wisdoin xv. 7. " Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor ?" Rom. ix. 21.

10. "Or if they admired their power and their effects, let them understand by them, that he who made them is mightier than they ; for by the greatness of the beauty and the creature, the Creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby." Wisdom xiii. 4, 5. " For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." Rom. i. 20.

11. " And his zeal will take armor, and he will arm the crea- ture for the revenge of his enemies. He will put on justice as a breast-plate, and will take true judgment instead of a helmet. He will take equity for an invincible shield : and he will sharpen his severe wrath for a spear." Wisdom v. 18, 21. " Therefore take unto you the armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day and to stand in all things perfect. Stand, therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breast- plate of justice in all things taking the shield of faith, where- with you may be able to extinguish all the tiery darts of the mos-t wicked one. And take unto you the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, (which is the word of God.") Eph. vi.

13, n.

12. " T]#y that fear the Lord, will not be incredulous to his word ; and they that love him will keep his way. They that fear the Lord will seek after the things that are well pleasing to him ; and they that love him, shall be filled with his law. . . They that fear the Lord, keep his commandments, and will have patience, even until his visitation." Ecclesiasticus ii. LS, 21. " If any one love me, he will keep my word." Jno. xiv. 2JV

VS. " My son, meddle not with many matters : and if thou be rich, thou sh.ilt not be free from sin." Kcclus. xi. H>. " For

39^ APPENDIX.

they that will become rich, fall into temptation, and into the snare of the devil, and into many unprofitable and hurtful desires, which drown men into destruction and perdition." 1 Tim. vi. 9.

14. " There is one that is enriched by living sparingly, and this is the portioTi of his reward. In that he saith : I have found me rest, and now I will eat my goods alone ; and he knoweth not what time shall pass, and that death approacheth, and that he must leave all to others and shall die." Ecclus. xi. 18, 19, 20. " And I (the rich man in the parable) will say to my soul : Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years, take thy rest; eat, drink, make good cheer. But God said to him : Thou fool, this night do they require thy soul of thee ; and whose shall those things be which thou hast provided 1" Luke xii. 19, 20.

15. If thou wilt keep the commandments and perform ac- ceptable fidelity for ever, they shall preserve thee." Ecclus. xv. 16. " If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Matthev/ xix. 17.

16. The passage of St. Paul : " But others were racked, not accepting deliverance, that they might find a better resurrection," (Heb. xi. 35,) has been acknowledged, even by Protestant com- mentators, to be, and evidently is, a reference to the account of the martyrdom of Eleazer given in the second book of Macca- bees, vi. 18-31.

I might cite many such passages, bu-t these will be sufficient for my purpose. Any '' candid and unprejudiced mind," at all versed in the rules of criticism, must see that in the New Tes- tament, the passages I have brought forward are alluded to and were had in view. The identity of thought and the similarity, often striking coincidence, of expression, absolutely require this, else there is no such thing as one writer's using the1tho4aght and expression of another. You say, though you do not maintain their opinion, that some " learned men have doubted whether some of them existed at all until some time after the 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 opin-

APPENDIX. 393

ion rendered it necessary, or did the space of this letter permit, might produce testimony in abundance to prove those works an- terior to the Saviour. One of the autliors you 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 e.xpress declaration of Origen, the highest authority we can find or could desire on this question of fact. In his epistle to Julius Africanus, Dc Historia Susan- ncc, he says : " In nostro Greco sermone feruntur in omni ecclesia Christi," that these passages of Daniel " are found in our Greek tongue throughout the entire church;" and further on : " Apud utrumque, (the Septuagint and Theodotion,) erat de Susanna ut tu dicisfigmentuin, etextremac 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 Plebrew in his day, " Apud Septua- ginta autem et Theodotionem ea sunt;" " they are found, never- theless, in the Septuagint and Theodotion." T do not pretend to say that the Seventy translated into Greek works written in that lano"uage, as were some of the books in question, or not com- posed until they were in their graves. It is generally 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 collec- tion, containing both classc.-^ of books, still retaining, at least among Christians, the name of the Sii,tu<igint version. Not to multiply quotations on this point, I will merely bring forward the testimony of Walton, the Editor of the Polyglott, whom I respect as the most learned of Protestants in such matters, and eminently qualified by his vast researches on the dilVtrcnt versions, to de- cide authoritatively. His Protestantism effectually prevented

18

394 APPENDIX.

any partiality in favor of those books. In his Prol. cap. v., he says: " Libri itaque apocryphi, ut a variis auctoribus ita variis temporibus script! sunt, quidam Hebraice, quidam Graece ; et licet apud Hellenistas primum recepti fuerint, tempus tamen prtBcise assignari non potest, quando cum reliquis libris sacris in unum volumen compacti fuerint. Hoc tamen clarum est, a Ju- deis Hellenistis cum reliqua Scriptura Ecclesiam eos recepisse." " Wherefore the Apocryphal books were written as well by dif- ferent 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 1 There existed a certain 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 comprised not only the canonical books of the Jews, but also those styled by the Protestants apocryphal, The Apostles quote frequently by name books of that collection, sometimes extract verbatim or with a partial change of words entire sen- tences, but more frequently adopting and appealing as it were to some passage, incorporate its sentiment, and more or less of its wording, into their own train of thought. This is most fre- quently 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 Bethelem Ephrata, art a little one among the thousands of Judah," quoted thus by St. Matthew, ii. 6 : " And thou, Bethelem the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Juda." Protestants find not the least

APPENDIX. 395

difficulty in admitting such passages of the New Testament to contain allusions to the Old, as long as their canonical books alone are concerned ; but when a passage of the works wliose inspiration they deny is laid before them, the thought and tuur- nure of expression of which an Apostle has adopted into his own Epistle, so evidently as would now-a-days suffice to convict a poet of plagiary, oh ! then that cannot be a quotation. Truly, Rev. Sir, to use your own words: "Light is death to their cause "

I have thus, Rev. 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 wil- ling to admit this in regard to all the books except Baruch with the Epistle of Jeremiah, the addition to the Book of Esther, and the parts of Daniel which you style the Story of Susannah, the Story 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 per- ished in those languages, not after, but before the time of the Sa- viour, I must have proof positive, which I do not recollect having ever met, and I am of opinion, does not exist. However, I waived all controversy on this point, allowing your argument all the force it could receive from the fact, 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 ren- der themselves "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 responsibility from the Jewish nation, and defeat your oun argument. 1 have not taken advantage of it, however ; as the Jews themselves attribute the formation of their canon, not to an immediate Revelation of (jii)d, but to their Chcneseth Ghedolah, or Great Synagogue. I, who see therein a

396 APPENDIX.

general Council of the Church in the Old Law, claiming and ex- ercising by the authority of God the power of teaching the faith- ful what were thei nspired works, will readily admit its Divine au- thority, as far as the decree can be evidently shown to have gone, that is, that tliose books were inspired. It cannot be proved that it determined any thing in regard to books either lost, as proba- bly many were, or yet unwritten, 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 wheth- er in this view you will admit the Divine authority of the Jewish Canon ; and yet you say the Saviour did. History informs us that this Great Synagogue ended, and was not revived or suc- ceeded by any other of equal authority, to act on the canon of Scripture. Hence, even were there noonday evidence of the in- spiration of those books, the Jews could not, at least according to their own writers, place them in the Canon. It was not neces- sary 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 gathered from the facts that, as Walton says, 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 fraud in regard to the Sacred Oracles," in not inserting those works, even though they be inspired, in their national canon.

Your next assertions were that " the Saviour and his Apostles approved of the Jewish 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 con- trary appeal 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 infer it, exist simply in your own ardent imagination, and are not such as historical evidence sustains.

These you follow up with another statement equally unsup- ported by their words or the facts of the case ; that *' the Saviour and his Apostles evidently treated the Jewish Canon as complete, and containing the whole of God's revelation as far as it was then made." For this, precisely, you offer no proof. You view it as

APPENDIX. 397

the evident consequence of the other items of argument. They fall to the ground, and this must fall with them.

You think that had the Jews been guilty of the heinous crime with which, in case these books are inspired, you tax them, the Saviour and his Apostles were bound to denounce this particu- lar offence. I think it would have been sufficient to condemn them in general, and to ^taie some of their errors, without being bound to go over the whole list. He proposed the truth of Christianity in general, for their acceptance. If they embraced this, the acceptance of those books would have followed, 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 Relicrion, but to establish another ; that whicli it forcshad- owed. He might, as he did, condemn particular 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 afterwards, 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 abuse, or that he was bound to single out this particular error. We have two parallel cases : that of the Samaritans, whose schism or error he condemned in John iv. 22, and of the Sadducees whom both He and St. Paul condemned. Both were heinously guilty of rejecting inspired writings as mere human productions, and yet we have no evidence that they charged them with this par- ticular error or sin. Why then bind them to do so in regard to the Pharisees?

You finally state that Christ and his Apostles did nothing in regard to those books : and this you sustain in your first argu- ment by saying there is not in the New Testament any record of the fact ; and in your second, by endeavoring to show that the Christians of the first four centuries acted in such a manner in regard to those books, as they certainly would not have done if the Saviour or his Apostles had given any testimony of their insj)i-

ration.

I might answer, that though the Saviour did n(»t establish evi- dently the inspiration of those books then, He could have done

398 APPENDIX.

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 re- ceived 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 resurrection, would be very valuable. Among these last you might, reverend sir, find something bearing on the number of in- spired 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 as- sert 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 Saviour and Apostles did do something in re- gard 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 similarity, sometimes copied turn of expression, prove this evidently. The circumstances of the case support it. According to Walton, the collection containing these, with the canonical books of the Jews, was in the hands both of the writers and those who read their books. The subjects 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 canonical works, but also to those you deem uninspired. I believe with Walton, that the Septuaginf, 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

APPENDIX. 399

suffer the unnatural union to pass into the church. Now I shall show, that as far hack as the remnants of those early ages will carry us, we find Christians uniting them both in the Septuagint, and revering both as divinely inspired. This very omission of excluding them, taken especially with the decided belief of the early Christians, is a strong proof in favor of the inspiration of those books. But you do not " believe that the Septuagint at the Saviour's time contained the Apocrypha." Reverend Sir, a more disastrous avowal you could not have made. The union then took place in the church ; necessarily under the eyes and with the approbation of the Apostles and their immediate, most faithful disciples. These books are quoted and referred to as divinely inspired Scripture. I could not desire a stronger case. Before the Apostles, the contested books were not inserted. Im- mediately afterwards we find them already inserted. A change has taken place. It could only be effected by, it can only be at- tributed to, the Saviour and his Apostles. Therefore they did leave works to the Christian world as inspired, I remain Rev. Sir, yours, &lc.

A. P. F.

Letter III

To the Rev. James H. Thorxwell, Professor of the Evidences of Chris-

tianitij, ^-c.

Rev. Sir, — We are now arrived at the most important point in the examination of the Historical Evidences in favor of those books, for revering which as " Sacred and Canonical," you charcre the Catholic church with blasphemously adding to the word of God.

Before I enter on the task of laying before you the evidence of that character in favor of the truth of the decree passed by the Council of Trent, let me again urge on you the absolute ne- cessity of admitting tiic 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 ovcrwholm- inof majority of Christians can learn with certainty, and on which they can be required to believe unhesitatingly, the inspiration of

400 APPENDIX.

the Scriptural books. Even did there exist no historical testi- mony whatever to prove the truth set forth in that decree, as long as we have reasons for admitting, and are forced by neces- sity to admit, the authority of the tribunal from which it ema- nates, the inspiration of those books is proved to our understand- ing by an a priori argument of the strongest character.

In point of fact, millions on millions of Christians in every age have believed, and must still hold, the Scriptures to be divine- ly inspired, simply on authority. How many are there, think you, even among Protestants in South Carolina, who believe it; not because their parents or instructors have so taught them ; not because it is the general belief of persons whom they esteem, of the community of which they are members, of the denomination to which they are attached ; 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 pre- mises 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 under- standings ? 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 argu- ment from historical or internal evidence had been laid before them, but because they had been brought up and led by educa- tion and authority to do so. Whether by acting thus, notwith- standing the want of the aforesaid arguments, they followed a course that was not *' righteous and holy" and " ran the risk of everlasting damnation,'' I leave you. Rev. Sir, to decide. To me such cases are but particular examples of a general truth taught alike 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 pros- ecute the investigation of that mass of evidence, with success.

APPENDIX. 101

Any system which would require all to do so, must be absurd, for it supposes that possible which is morally impossible ; and false, because it contradicts the intinitc wisdom of God, as dis- played in his apportionment of men in the various conditions of life. Both among Catholics and Protestants there ever will be, there /;/M5^ be, many to whose understandings no valid arguments from reason or from liistorical evidence for the inspiration of the Scripture, will ever be submitted — whose condition in life pro- hibits it. Some mdiy think they have them, whose reasons never- theless for belief are any thing 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 iiu>piraiion 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 Protest- ant system, there is no such authority to teach this truth, none which any one is bound to hear, or at least none which mav not lead to error, and none therefore whose teaching necessarily gives truth with unerring accuracy, and leaves no room for rea- sonable doubt and hesitation. In this system God would not have provided any means whereby those can learn certainly and unerringly the inspiration of the Scripture, who are, by their circumstances, unavoidably restricted to the use of authority alone on this question. In the Catholic system, on the contrary, this hiatus in the works of God does not exist. An anthoritv is established by Him to teach this truth, and in fulfilling that com- mission, is guarded by his Omnipotence from falling into error. The evidence of the commission itself and of the L^uaranty from error, is before the world. Christians are required to believe the Scriptures to be inspired on that authority ; and in believing, they have an assurance from Divine Truth and Oninii)otcnce that they err not. Historical evidence may or may n )t exist to corroborate the declaration 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 illustration adds nothing to

402 APPENDIX.

the certainty of a theorem established by mathematical demon- stration. If this collateral testimony were not in the possession of the person whose belief is required, or even were it not in ex- istence, the truth of the doctrine taught would remain unchanged and the obligation of believing it equally strong.

Nay more, a person is still bound to believe, even when seem- ing arguments which he cannot refute are urged to the contrary. Common sense tells him that what is known and proved to be true by one method of demonstration, cannot be shown to be re- ally false by another : that truth is never opposed to truth. Ex- perience would tell him that there is no doctrine against which words cannot be arrayed. He may find objections, the fallacy or falsehood of which he cannot point out, brought against the in- spiration of any or of all the books so declared to be inspired. But he knows that the authority which proclaims them inspired, teaches truth; and that whatever contradicts truth must be er- roneous. He is bound still to believe. Men act thus every day in matters of life ; and they are forced to carry out the principles also in doctrines of Christianity. Let me illustrate it by an ex- ample.

You hold. Rev. 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, de- barred by law from learning to read, cannot peruse his Bible ; can- not (leaving aside the question of inspiration) decide whether certain texts (among them the strongest, perhaps the only deci- sive one on the Trinity) be interpolations, as most Protestant critics have determined that of I John v. 7 to be ; cannot col- late all the texts on the subject, and pronounce unerringly that in them God has made such a declaration. He must learn the doc- trine of the Trinity from authority. He is bound to believe it unhesitatingly, because God, who cannot declare an untruth, has declared it, and the Catholic would add, common sense re- quires, because the authority which communicates to him that declaration of God is prevented by Divine Omnipotence from teaching that He declared what in fact He did not. An Unita- rian might say to the negro : " You are told that the Father is distinct from the Son, and the Holy Ghost from both ; they are

APPENDIX. 403

three distinct Persons. Now, if the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God they must, tlierefore be three Gods and not one God, and to say that tliree 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 any thing absurd, and any 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 sys- tem 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 there- fore I believe it, though I cannot refute your 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 sec what answer the neo-ro could make, or how he could reasonabbj continue in an unhesitatinar belief of the Trinity.

I opine, too, that even the most learned theologian would find himself 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 fact, that God did declare this to be the case. Now 1 certainly believe the doc- trine 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 doc- trine 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 susceptible of another and very different sense. So too are all the other texts urged in favor of this dogma. The Unitarians strongly and earnestly urge these views. And in perusing several Protestant treatises on the

404 APPENDIX.

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 plausible, perliaps a probable case. De- prived of the authoritative teaching of the Catholic church, I would not, on mere plausible or probable evidence, yield an un- hesitating belief in so astounding a mystery as this, or expose my- self to the danger of Idolatry by adoring as God one who might perhaps be after all a mere creature. I thank Heaven I am not - left in this perplexity or unbelief Though I cannot refute meta- physically all the metaphysical objections against the august mys- tery of the Trinity, though my researches of mere historical tes- timony or simple examination of the Scripture 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 hearts I would hear Him. On His authority, and their testimony, I 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 perhaps 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 unerringly, in His name, what books are sacred and canonical, we are bound to receive unhesitatingly, as the word of God, the books designated as such by that tribunal, even though we pos- sess not collateral proof from historical 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 urged against the inspiration of some or of all of those books.

I have shown in my first letter that every Christian at least must admit that God did establish such a tribunal. When that is established, collateral testimony is of secondary importance. 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.

APPENDIX. 406

I have made these prefatory, perhaps discursive remarks, that our readers may see the nature, the bearing, and the value of historical testimony in favor of the inspiration of ilie books which Catholics admit as inspired, and you reject as of no more author- ity than Seneca's Letters, or Tully's Offices.

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 parts of books, as they would not have done, unless the Saviour and his Apos- tles had left them to the early church as inspired. Here, Rev. Sir, we are fairly at variance. I will give your second argument in your own words : —

2. " If it should be pretended that Christ did give his Apos- tles authority to receive these books, though no record was made of the fact, we ask how it comes to pass — and we mention this as our second argument aorainst them — that for four centuries the unbroken testimony of the Christian church is against their inspiration 1 They are not included in the catalogues given by Melito, * Bishop of Sardis, who flourished in the second cen- tury— of Origen, t Athanasius, | Hilary, § Cyril of Jerusa- lem, II Epiphanias, tf Gregory Nazianzen, ** Ruffinus ft and others; neither are they mentioned among the canonical books recognized by the Council of Laodicea. As a sample of the testimonies referred to in the margin, we will give a few passages from Jerome, the author of the authentic version com- monly called the Vulgate. In the preface concerning all the books of the Old Testament which he prefixed to his Latin translation of Samuel and Kings, after having given us the Jew- ish canon, he says : ' Hie prologus scripturarum, quasi Galealuin principium omnibus libris quos de Hebraeo vertimus in Latinum convenire potest: ut scire valeamus quicqnid extra hos est inter Apocrypha esse ponendum.' 'Therefore,' he adds, * Wisdom, which is vulgarly attributed to Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, Tobias, and Pastor, are not in

» Euseb. lib. iv. c. 26. t Expos. Psal. i. 0pp. torn. ii. Euscb vi. 25.

\ Pasch. Epist. § Prologr. in Psalmos. || 4lh Cato. E.xer.

IT Haeres i. 6. •• Can. 33. +t Exposit. ad synib. npost.

406 APPENDIX.

the canon.' His testimony in relation to the Maccabees, is equally decided. In the prologue to his Commentary on Jere- miah, he declines explaining the book of Baruch, which in the edition of the LXX is commonly joined with it, because the Jews rejected it from the canon, and he of course knew no authority for inserting it. In the preface to his translation of Daniel, he assures us that the stori/ of Susannah, the song of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, are not only not in the Jewish copies, but had exposed Christians to ridicule for the respect which they paid to them ! In his preface to To- hit and Judith he pronounces them Apocryphal !

''Here, then, about the close of the fourth century, we find no remnant of any unwritten tradition from Christ and his Apos- tles authorizing the church to receive these books. The early fathers followed in the footsteps of the Jews, and unanimously concurred in receiving no other canon of the Old Testament as inspired, but that which came down to them through the Jewish church. In this opinion learned men in every age have concur- red up to the very meeting of the Council of Trent. We refer to such men as Cardinal Ximenes, Ludovicus Vives, the accom- plished Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan. How could there have been such a general concurrence in an error so deplorable, if Christ and his Apostles had ever treated these books as the lively Oracles of God! Surely there would have been some record, some hint of a fact so remarkable. We ask the Romanist to re- concile the testimonies of the Fathers with the decree of Trent. In the language of Bishop Burnet : " Here we have four centu- ries clear for our canon in exclusion of all additions. It were easy to carry this much further down, and to show that these books (the Apocrypha) were never by any express definition re- ceived into the canon till it was done at Trent, and that in all acres of the church, even after they came to be much esteemed, there were divers writers, and those generally the most learned of their time, who denied them to be a part of the canon.' "

This, Rev. Sir, might strike a reader altogether unacquaint- ed with those early times, as very forcible, and nearly if not quite " irresistible." A second perusal of your essay would show him, that much as you seem to have kept the matter out of

APPENDIX. 407

sight, even in those first four ages there were at least two sides to the question, whereas your argument is grounded on the asser- tion 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, Rev. Sir, to one who is acquainted with those early days of the church, it must be a matter of astonish- ment, how, if you had read five authors of those times, (and if you 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 Chris- tians 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 truth handed down to them, they would not throughout the world unite in ** blasphemously adding to the word of God." If they united in receiving those works as inspired, 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 testimony 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 oi' parts of books irrre con- tained in the Old Testament as used by the early Christians in the infancy of the Cliurch. That they all existed at the time of St. Jerome, and at his day formed part of the Old Testament, can- not be denied. At the proper place, I will speak of his views* on

408 ' APPENDIX.

their inspiration. At present let us investigate facts. The Lat« in Vulgate as used then contained them. Now, Rev. Sir, if it be made evident that those works were received universally and from the earliest day into the body of the Old Testament, your assertion that there is no remnant of any tradition, does not coincide with the fact. At what time were those works joined to the canonical works of the synagogue ? All the works, ex- cept perhaps Wisdom and the second book of Maccabees, were originally written in Hebrew or Chaldaic ; as their frequent Semi- tic idioms evidently show. St. Jerome translated Tobias and Judith from the Chaldaic, and declares that he saw Ecclesiasticus and Maccabees in the original Hebrew. Baruch with the Epis- tle of Jeremiah bear the indelible impress of their Hebrew ori- gin. Origen declares emphatically that the parts of Esther and Daniel you reject were in the versions of the Septuagint and of Theodotion. We know that^Theodotion, whom St. Jerome :all3 SiJudaizing Heretic, translated from the Hebrew into Greek, i.nd his version of Daniel containing those parts, is that anciently tdopted by the Greek and Latin churches, and still followed en- tirely by the first, and in those parts by the latter. This clearly ascertained origin at once shows that the works were prior to .'he Saviour. If the Christians had written them afterward, iVhich this general adoption forbids, they would have done it in Greek or Latin, their lanoruaores. 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 He- brew 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 cannot be ascer- tained 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 Hellenist Jews. I said the transfer was made with the approba- tion of the Apostles, who in writing their inspired epistles had manifestly used those works. I will now prove it by the versions of

APPENDIX. 409

the Old Testament among the Christians. Taking the Septua- gint or Greek version alone, I cannot see what valid arguments can be adduced to prove that it did not contain those works in the beginning. Not the omission of them in copies, for the old- est entire manuscripts contain them. Not any testimony of some ancient writer, for as far as they bear witness it did, and, as I will show farther on, they quote those identical works. But there is another insurmountable objection to your opinion, and an irrefragable proof of my proposition. Two versions were made of the Scrijitures immediately after the death of the Apos- tles, 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 versions or amended versions existed among the Latins, but that there was one called the vetus Itula vuIgatR, the ancient Italian, and commonly adopted one, the first of all and probably the groundwork of the others. As far back as manuscripts and notices of this version in writers will carry us, we find it containing those books. Blanchini has published part of it, but the work is not in Charleston. The book of Psalms, both books of the Maccabees, Wisdom and Ec- clesiasticus and the parts of Esther, as now used in the western church, are of this oriorinal version.

The Peshito, or ancient simple Syriac version, contained those works. Walton has inserted in the fourth volume of his Polyglott the whole of them, except the portions of Esther ; and part at least of these has been since found.

This version, made, as is allowed by all oriental scholars, if not in the first, at least in the beginning of the second century, a few years after the death of St. John, is taken from the He- brew and Greek. Theodotion, who translated passages of Daniel from the Hebrew, now lost in that language, executed his ver- sions at a later period than that assigned by the learned to the Syriac translation. At his day those parts existed in Hebrew. St. Jerome saw several of the other books you contest in He- brew (ir Chaldaic, and the word he uses, rrpcri, shows that copies of them were then extremely rare : they have since perished. Now in looking over the Syriac version of those works, you will

410 APPENDIX.

see that some are taken from the Hebrew, where probably it could be found, and others from the Greek, where the work was written originally in that language or the Hebrew might not probably have been at hand. The Syriac version of Tobias and Judith apparently follows the Septuagint; or possibly both may be directly translated from the original, which is now lost. The version of St. Jerome, also from the original, follows avowedly the sense, not the words of the Chaldaic or Hebrew, and cannot guide us in determining which. The portions of Esther in Syriac were not in the possession of Walton. They are found in the Septuagint and the Vulgate. I said, however, that part of them at least have since been discovered in the Syriac. In Wis- dom and Ecclesiasticus the Syriac agrees with the Septuagint, and appears to have been translated from it. On the contrary, Ba- riich with the Epistle of Jeremiah appear to have been trans- lated into Syriac, not from the Greek of the Septuagint, but from the Hebrew original now no loncrer extant. So, too, the Peshito Syriac version of the contested parts of Daniel is taken, not from the Septuagint, but from the original Hebrew, whence Theodo- tion at a later period took them. There are many evidences of this. For example, in the History of Susannah, the Greek says that two ancients were appointed judges, while the Syriac has two priests. Now the original Hebrew word was undoubtedly cohenim, which signifies both priest, and prince, or ancient. The Syriac translator took the Hebrew word in one sense, and the Greek in another. This difference would not have happened, had the Syriac been taken simply from the Greek. On a comparison of the first and second books of Maccabees in the Greek and in the Syriac version, it will be evident, that the second book in Syriac is taken from the Greek, while it seems more probable that the first is from the kindred Hebrew.

It appears, therefore, that immediately after the days of the Apostles, in the first or beginning of the second century, when, according to Walton, Wiseman, and the best scholars, the Syriac and Latin versions were made, the Christians did not think that no books were contained in their Old Testament, except those inserted by the Synagogue in the Jewish canon. Whether the whole Christian world could have united in embodying the books

APPENDIX. 411

you object to in their body of Scriptures, without some testimony from the Apostles to that effect, I leave you and mv readers to judge. I believe, as I said, with Walton, that th(jse books were united to the Jewish canonical books by the Hellenist Jews, be- fore the days of Christianity, and that they came already united into the church. The Apostles, as I showed in my last, allude to and incorporate passages and phrases from these works into their own writings. We have just seen that the early Septuacrint and the two other versions made by Christians, in what you will allow were the purest and palmiest days of Christianity, contained them. Even were I to give, that these books were not united to the others before the time of Christ, this concession would but increase your difficulty, and display more strikingly the differ- ence between the Jewish and the Christian Old Testament, a difference which could only arise from the teaching of Christ and his Apostles.

But, you may say, if this be so, the early Christian writers would quote those books. It is natural, Rev. Sir, that if they wrote much they should sometimes do so, and that, if their works be preserved in any quantity, we should find such quotations therein. And zee dojind them.

We have a portion of the authentic writings of four Chris- tians before the year 100; St. Barnabas the Apostle's catholic Epistle; St. Polycap's Epistle to the Philippians; St. Ignatius's Epistles; and a considerable portion of St. Clement's first Epistle to the Corinthians, and a fragment of his second Epistle to the same.

Now in this small collection, the earliest of the Christian writings, we have several quotations from those books.

1. St. Barnabas, in § 6 of his Epistle, has the following passage : " But what saith the Prophet against Israel : Woe be to their soul, because they have taken wicked counsel against themselves, saying : Let us lay snares for the righteous, because he is unprofitable to us." This passage is composed of the two texts, Isaias iii. 9, " \Voc to their soul, for evils are rendered to theui," and Wisdom ii. IvI, " Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn." Here St. Barnabas quotes in the same sentence, and us of equal inspired authority,

412 APPENDIX.

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 shouldst give." What is this but a quotation of £c- clesiasticus (iv. 33, 34, 36), another of the books of your heathen category? ^' Strive for justice for thy soul, and even unto death fight for justice, and God will overthrow thy enemies for thee. Se not hasty in thy tongue : and slack and remiss in thy works. Let 7iot thy hand he stretched out to receive, and shut when thou shouldst give J'

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 you subject to one another, having your conver- sations honest (or irreproachable) among the Gentiles." St. Polycarp, like St. Barnabas, quotes in the same breath an author whom you admit as inspired, and one whom you reject and con- demn 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 Fpistles of St. Ignatius 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 several authors refer to a passage speaking of Daniel and Susannah. But as it is not in the copy before me, I con- sider it most probably one of the interpolations foisted into the saint's writings in after years. 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 strensrth ?" These words are taken from Wisdom xi. 52, and xli, 12 : " For who shall say to thee, what hast thou done?" *' And who shall resist the strength of thy arm ?"

APPENDIX. 413

5. In § 55, he writes thus : " And even many women, being strengthened by the grace of God, have done many glorious and manly things. The blessed Judith, when her city was besietred desired the elders that they would suffer her to go to the camp of the strangers; and she went out, exposing herself to danaer for the love she bore to her country and her people that were besieged. And the Lord delivered Ilolof ernes into the hands of a woman. Nor did Esther, being perfect 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 humbling her- self, she intreated the great Maker of all things, the God of ages ; who, beholding the humility 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 Judith (xvi. 7). In his account of Esther, too, St. Clement evidently had in his mind, not only the passao-e 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 Miscellany, and must conclude here for the present.

We have seen that the Old Testament, in the infancy of the church, and from one extremity of the Christian world to the other, whether in Syriac, in Greek, or in Latin, conta ned the books which tlie Catholic canon now contains, and which you would have us exclude. We have seen three out of the four first Christian writers quoting them unequivocally, precisely as they quote the other books of the Scripture — making no distinc- tion whatever. Add to this, if you please, the passages enumer- ated 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 Christian church is against their inspiration."

I will in my next take up some Christian writers of the^second century, and shall show that they also quoted those works as parts of the Scripture. Meanwhile,

I remain, Rev. Sir,

Yours, &,c.,

A. P. F.

414

APPENDIX.

COLLECTION OF THE PASSAGES IN WHICH DR. LYNCH HAS REPRESENTED THE FATHERS AS QUOTING THE APOCRYPHA.

N. B. The first column gives the name of the author and the book ; the second, the pas- sages which are simply quoted or accommodated ; the third, those which are quoted with some mark of distinction, as Scripture, Divine Scripture, or under the name of a prophet ; the fourth gives merely allusions to the contents ol the book, or assumes its history to be true-

Some few passages may have been omitted, as the syllabus has been prepared in great haste.

Name and Works of

Apocryphal passages

Those quoted as

the Fathers.

which are simply quo- ted.

Scripture, or Divine Scripture.

Allusions to

Apocry.

JUSTIN MARTYR.

I Apol. $ 44.

Ecclus. XV. 14-18.

IREN^US.

Contra Haeres l.iv.c.37

Wisdom vi. 20.

" lib.v. c. 35.

8aruchiv.36.37.

" lib. iv. c.26.

Daniel xiii. 56, 52, 53.

" hb. iv.c. 5.

" xiv. 3, 4,24.

CLEMENS ALEX.

•

Psedag. lib. i. c.7.

Ecclus. xi. 7. i. 27, 28.

" lib. i. c. 9.

Ecclus. XXX. 8.

" lib. ii C.5.

Ecclus. xxi 23.

" lib. ii. c. 8.

" xxxviii. 1.

" lib. ii. c. 8.

" xxxix. 31.

" lib.iii. c. 3.

" XXV. 8

Stromat. lib. iv.

Wisdom iii. 2-8. (as Divine Wisdom.)

" lib. vi.

Wisdom v. 2-5. (under

name of Solomon.)

" lib. vi.

Wisdom iii. 14. as Sol.

PaBdag. lib. i. c. 10.

Bar. iv. 4. iii.4. as Jer.

" lib.ii. c. 3.

" iii. 16-19.

Strom, lib. vi.

Tobias xii. 8.

TERTULLIAN.

Monog. c. 17.

.

Judith viii. 1.

Preescrip. c. 7.

Wisdom i. l.as Sol.

Cont. Valent. c. 2.

........

" i. 1. as Sol.

De anima c. 15.

Wisdom i. 6.

De virg. vel. c. 13,

" viii. 21,

Cont. marc. c. 5.

Ecclus. XV. 18.

De exhort, cast. c. 2.

Ecclus. XV. 18.

Scorpiseum

Bar. vi. 3, 4,5. as Jer.

De coron milit. c. 4.

Daniel xiii. 32.

De Idol. c. 18

Daniel xiv.

De Jejun. c. 9.

" xiv. 32, 38.

Advs. Jud c. 4.

I Mai. ii.41.

De prsescrip. c. 13-

•.••••..

2 Mai. ii. 28.

CYPRIAN.

Test, adauir. 1. iii.c.l

Tobias ii. 2. iv; 6-12.

" " l.iii.c.7.

" ii. 16.

De Mortal! c.7.

" xii. 15.

APPENDIX.

41.

Name and Works of Apocryphnl pnggagepl Those quoted &f the Fathers. wliich are simply quo- "Scripture, or Divini

ted. Scripture.

CYPRIAN.

De Orat, Dom. c. 21.

He Op et Elecmos c.4 Tobit xii.8.

Exhort. Mart. c. 12.

De .Mortal, c. 17.

Ad D.mct. c. 13. Wisdom v. 1-8.

De habit. Virg c. 7. I

Ad Rogat. I

Dc Mortal, c. 5. |

De Op. et Eleemos. c.2^

De Unit. Eccles. c. 19.;

Ad Kogat.

De Laps. c. 19.

De Unit. Eccles. c. 11.

De Orat Dom. c. 4.

E.xhort ad Mort. c, 11.

De < »rat Dom. c. 14.

De Op. et Eleemos. c.8

Epist. 40.

Test, ad Quir. 1. ii. c.6.

De Orat. Dom. c. 2

Test, ad duit. 1. iii. c.4 2 Mac. ix. 12. ii. 62, 63.

,, ,., ... ,., 2 Mac. vi. 30. vii, 9. hb.iu. c. 17., ,4^16,17,18,19. '

" lib iii. C.3. IMac. ii. 60. Exhort ad Mort. c. 12

HIPPOLYTUS.

Cont. Noet.c. 2.

DIONYSIUS OF AL- EXANDRIA.

Epist. ad Germ. Cont. Paul. Samosat

APOST. CONSTI- TUTIONS.

Lib. ii. c. 37,49.51. Lib. viii. c. ]. Lib. vi. c. 19. Lib. vii. c. 23. Lib. vi. c. 29. Lib. iii c. 7. Lib. v. c. 19.

POPE SIRICIUS

Kpist. ad Himmer. c. 7.

JULIUS FIRMICUS MATERNUS.

EPIIREM. THE SY- RIAN.

De Evcrs. superb.

Tobit. xii.8.

Wisdom iii 4-8. " iv. 11-14.

" V. 8.

" iii. 4-8.

Ecclus ii. 1-4.

'• iii. 33.

•' xxviii. 28.

" vii. 31-33,

Daniel xxv 34.

Daniel iii 51. " xiv. 4.

Bar. iii. 36-38, as Jer. " vi.5.

Baruch iii. 36-38.

" iv. 4. Wisdom iii. J.

Wisdom i. 4.

Baruch iii. 36-38.

Tobit xiii. 7. Wisdom i. 5, 6.

Allusions to Apocry.

Daniel iii. 49-50.

XIV.

xiv. xiii.

2 Mac. vi. and vii.

Daniel ix.

Wisdom XV. 15-17 as

Solomon's. Baruch vi. 5-9. as Jer.

• I Yi 21 05 30

31, 64, 50, and 57.

Daniel xiii. '* xiv.

Judith.

416

APPENDIX.

Name and Works of

Apocryphal passages

Those quoted as

the Fathers.

which are simply quo- ted.

1

Scripture, or Divine Scripture.

Allusions to

Apocry.

EPHREM. THE SY-

RIAN.

De virtut. c. 3.

Daniel iii. 40.

De Humil. c. 9.

" iii. 39.

Paraens. 9.

« iii. 50.

De orat.

" iii. 33.

De paenit. c, 23.

, ,

Daniel iii.

Paraen. ad monegit, c. 14, 11.

Daniel xiii. 52.

Epist. ad Joan.

Daniel xiii.

De muliere.

" xiii.

De Rect.viv. Nat. c.85

" iv. 32

-36.

De Patient. Sec.

" iv. 32-

-36.

In D Basylium.

Tobit xii. 7.

Serm. Cent. Jude.

Baruchix.4&20.iii.38

De Tiniore Dei.

Wisdom iv. 12.

De Certam. &c. c. 8.

••«••...

Wis.iv.7,8.9.T.l— 16

Advs. Levit.

" iii. 1, 6. 9.

De Humil. c. 94.

" ii. 21,22.

Parsen, 39.

Wisdom vi. 9.

Exhort 40.

" i. 12.

" 46.

Wisdom XV. 12.

De Patient.

'« V. 18—24.

De vFrt. et. vit. c. 8.

Ecclus. ii. 15.

De imore Dei.

Ecclus. xxxii. 1. viii. 6, 7. xxxi. 5.

" XXV. 13 iii. 7. xviii. 30 and 31.

((

Ecclus. vi. 18.

Eccl.xi. 5, iv.7. vii.40.

De Panop. &c.

" vi. 30.

De cast.

Ecclus. Vv. 25, 26.

Neerosima. can. 15.

2d Mac. vi.

Testamentum.

" vi.

BASIL THE GREAT

Cont. Eunom. lib. 5, c. 15, § 2.

Wisd. i. 4.

Cont. Eunom. c.l4,$2.

Wisdom i. 7.

" c 2.

Wis. ix. 1,2, as Sol.

((

Wisdom i. 7.

Epist. 8, $ 12, and 11.

Wis. i. 4, 7.

Horn. 12.

" i. 4, as Solomon's

" 14.

" vi. 7.

De Sane. Spir. c. 23, $ 54.

Wisdom i. 7.

Horn. 12, § 13.

Daniel xiii. 50.

Hom. in 40 mart. § 6.

" iii. 40.

Epist. 243, $ 43.

" iii. 38, 39.

CoDt. Unam. lib.2. §19

Esther xiv. 11.

" " " 4.C. 3.

Baruch iii. 32, as Jer.

')e Sane. Spir. cS. § 19

Judith ix. 4.

Epist 6.

2d Mac. vii«

Hom. Deut. c. 5, 9.

Ecclus. ix. 20.

Hexaem. Hom. 6, 910.

xxvii. 12.

Capit. Ques. 104.

Ecclus. xxxii. 22.

CHRYSOSTOM.

Ad Viduam Jun.

Ecclus. xviii 26. xi. 5.

Hom. de Lat.

" xix. 16.

Serm. 8. Cont. Jude.

" ii. 1—5.

Serm. de Lat.

Ecclus. ii. 1, 2.

Exhort. 2 ad. Theod.

" V. 8.

Hom. 18. ad pop. anth.

« xiv. 2.

I APPENDIX

417

Name ami Works of Apocryphal passages | Those quoted as the Fathers. i which are simply quo- Scripture, or Divine

ted. Scriptures.

CIIRYSOSTOM.

Do Fato.

Horn. 15. ad pop. anth. Serm. 1 in Act. Apost. De virginitat. c. 22. Serm. inCalcndas. Horn, in Gen. 11. P.salm 109. Horn, in Matt. 27. Horn, in Ept. Heb. 7. Nous. Anom. 5. Cont. Jude et Gent. Horn. 3. ad pop. anth. Honi. GO. in Joan. Horn. 13. in Epis. Heb. Horn. 9. do

Hom. 5. Nous. Anom. Cont. Jude et Gent. Hom. in Pentecost, 1. Hom. 15. in Ist Cor. Hom. 18. do

Hom. 2. in Philem.

AMBROSE.

Hexaem. Lib. 4. c. 8.

In Xoach, <!fcc. c. 35.

In Naboth. c. 8.

Tract, de 42.

Psalm 118.

Jacob, c. 8.

Joseph.

Psalm 43. |

Hexaem. Lib. 3. c. 14*

Jn Tobit. I

Cain et Abel, c 9. I 42 Man.s. |

Hexaem. Lib. ii. c. 4. De officii?. Lib. ii. c. 9. Joseph c. 5. I

Jacob. Lib. i. c. 8. ' do Lib. ii. c. 9. i Elias, c. 9.

De officiis, c. 13 & 14. Jacob. Lib. ii. c. 9. De officiis, Lib. ii. o. 29

PAULINAS OF NOLA.

Exhort, ad cclant. Epist. ad pamacb. 37.

do 30.

do 32.

do 39.

do 37.

Wisdom V. 36. " iii. 1.

Esther xiv. 13.

Daniel iii. 23. " iii. 38. " iii. 38.

Daniel iii. 29, 30. " iii. 29, 30, 39, 32. xiv. 37.

Ecclua. XV. 17 and 15. Ec. i.20. ix. 10, as Sol. Ecclus. xvi. 3.

Wisdom xiv. 3.

" xvi. 28.

" vi. 7.

'« iv. 8, 9. Baruch iii. 3fr, 37, 38. " iii. 36, 37, 38.

Tobit iv. 7. " iv. U.

Daniel xiii. 52.

Ecclus. xxvi. 12. " xxxii. 13. " iv. 8. " ii. 5. Wisdom i 6. jWis. iv. 8, 9. xiv. 7,8. I Wis. ii. 12, as Sol. [Wis. vii. 7, do I Baruch iv. 26. v. 27, as

Jeremiah. BafU"^!! iii. 24, 25. " iii. 1. " iii. 29, 30. Dau. iii. 56, 68, 67. 74.

Allusiona to Apocry.

Judith mentioned.

Judith viii. 6.

,Ref. to story ofSusann.

I

jRef. to Bel and Dragon

Ref. to Judith. 2d Mac. 6 and 7 cap. " 3.

Eccl. iv. 25— 2S.xiviii.

28, 29.-3 ch. 20 v. Ec. xxxviii. 16 xvii. 18 Ec. vii. 16. Wis. viii. 1 Ec. xix. 15. Eo. v. B. Wisdom iv. 7. Baruch

iii. 18, 19.

11^ The somewhat numerous errata noted below, are to be accounted for partly from the author's distant residence from thu place of priniiiifjr, which prevented him from revising the i)roofs ; but mainly, from the obscurity and incorrectness of the manuscript. They occur mostly in the Latin and Greek quotations in the Notes, many of which it was impossible to verify on the spot, and have sel- dom any important bearing on the sense.

ERRATA.

Page 12, last line in notu,read Remoiust- for Demonst.

'■ 21, fifili line of note, read super ca re for i-uperarc.

" " first line of note, read discuterentur for discutiuntur.

" " fourteenth line of note, 6c\efacUi

" " " " " insert Sanctum after apud.

" " seventeenth line of note, read eipciutercntur for cjperentur.

*' " twenty-eighth line of note read detested for detected.

" 40, first hnc of note read A. V. F., for A. P. P.

'• 41, Note, for Westminster Conf. chap. i. 55, read chap. i. $ 5.

" 44, first line of note, for apnnroijxiiveUai read ai-aiTOipatveaOai.

" 55, fiftii line of note, read tout for tous.

" '• eighth lino of note, read coiis^'fMf for coTUsfi^i//?. •

*' " tenth line of note, read appartient exclusivemcnt for appartiens cxslusivemcju.

" " thirteenth line of note, read rnantVre y>flr for manjrrc pa*.

" " fourtcentli line of note, read cllc for cettc.

" " fifteenth line of note, read dans for sans.

" " twenty-sixth line of note, read cct for «<w.

" " thirtieth lino of note, read n^en for ij en.

" " thirty-second line of note, read />ri//iau<^ for priwMWitC.

" " fourth line from bottom, read celle-ci for cellece.

" " " " " read rcjetcr for rejiter.

" " third line from bottom, insert nicr after sans.

'• " second line from bottom, read qui for que.

" 63, line 22, dele tlie last word, their.

" 95, second note, thirteenth line from bottom, read g-ratite for gratia.

" '• twelfth line from bottom, read voluerunt for volaerant.

'• " sixth line from bottom, read omnis foi om-sis.

" 96, fourth line, read dialectics for dialects.

•' 118, first Latin note at star, read aliquid for allquid.

" 124, seventh line of note, read ayvoovvres for ayvavvra.

•' " " '« " KarayycWopcv iox KaTayeyn^tv.

*' " eighth line, read TcXcioiacii for rtXfiwaaf.

" " fourteenth lino, read est eucharistiu, for et rucharistia.

•' " eighth line from bottom, read dubitarnnt for dubitant.

'* " '' " " superstittunum for supersitionem.

*' " " " " epoplis for epoptes.

" " seventh line from bottom, read euni for sum.

" *' third line from bottom, read deilati for deitate.

" 125, second line of note, read mystcriis for mysteries.

" " seventeenth line of note, read arcana for arcano.

" " twenty-ser,OH(l line of note, read se for es.

" 130, the first note there siiould liave embraced the one wiiich foUowi the extract from Calvin's Institutes on page 131, beginning, 'The .Apostles arc a<MresBod," Sec.

" 133, note, sixth \\n<\ fro d bottom, there should be quotation marks after the word Bisk- ops, ilius, bishops," and the next sentence shou'd begin a paragraph.

" 134, the star in the text should be a section, as it does not correspond to the note.

** 145, note at star, dele to effort.

" 146, note, eighth lino from bottom, read reddidit for rcddidat.

" '* last line, road prastitcrint for pnrstitircnt.

" 147, second lino of nolo, read vero for viro.

" " note at star, first word, for assequitur read assequtCur.

*' " samti note, IhBt woid, i'oT poteslatis, Toad potentates.

*' 149 that no-e exhibits the opinions of Aquinas, /Lgidius and Cajetan, ai given by Bellarmin.

" 152, note, third lino, read imperator for impcratur, and put a comma between it anJ tho preceiling word.

" " note, seventh lino, read Jicri pcrmiscrint for ffcri pcrmiicrrint. •' '• read feudalia i'oT fudalia.

" " note, thirteenth lino, read suaserint for stuvidrrint

•* 153, note at star, second line, read drtinentcs for df^stinfnte.s. •

«• " '• " " TCtid Jidelilatis for Jidelitutea.

" '' third line, rend scrvus for serrius. *' " fourth line, read cadtt for radat.

•' 154, note, first line, read Presbyterum, for Pre^byttrium.

ERRATA.

Page 154, third line, read crimine for crimina.

" 180, note, third line from bottom, read Kemnitium for Rtmnitium.

" 188, note, twelfth line, read recipiendos, for recipiendo.

" 223, note beginning Ecclesiasticus, fill the blank with ayc^vKrai.

" 252, note, first line, read ezscribentes, for enscribentes.

" 259, Greek note, fourth line, read KonficoriKHs for KOn^oiTiEr]^.

'« '< 't » " read skto? for ktito;.

" " fifth line, read ayxoi^^vov for aX;^o/i£»'Oj'.

" " " read ISicotikov for pporiKUP.

" " sixth line, read r>7f for r£j, and i-po^rjr/js for Trpo^ijrfs.

" " seventh line, read aaaTOt for aaaeco.

" 262, "note, first line, read rov for £0-t.

" " text, f jurteenth line, last word, read were for we.

" " note, second line from bottom, read jjriore for prtora.

" 26?^, last note, read sancto for sancte.

" 274, Greek note, first line, read ov for ov.

" 275, note eighth l.ne, read omnino for oranino.

" 282, last note third line, read Kemnitius for Kenilius, and last line but one, censuerit

for coTisuerit.

" 283, note, fourth line, read ezfama Cot ezeama.

" 2-34, third note, second line, read tov for ~oj.

" •' fourth note, first line, read Orig-ines for origines.

*' S55, note, second line, read accensei for accensit.

" " fourteenth line, read Lindanus dubitantis for Lindamus dubitantes.

" " fifteenth line, read definientisiot definientes, and in the same note there should be

only a comma at 47.

" 2>'-7, note, first line, read legatur for legitur.

" 289, note second, second line, xeSiA prcefatione for presatione.

" " last note, first line, read Carthaginiense for Carthaginensi, " " fourth line, read intelUgetis for intelligeris.

'* " seventh line, insert 2 before Esdrce and a period after, and read Hebrcei for Hebrari. " " tenth line, read altius for aliiLs.

" 290, note, first line, insert ut before primum.

" " fourth line, insert 2 before paralipomenon, and read impejitiam for imperitalem.

" " seventeenth line, read animadverso for animadverto. " " nineteenth line, read Heira for Hera.

" " twenty-second line, read opinionem for opinione.

" " twenty-third line, after Bibliis insert regiis habeater Tertii Esdrae Graece ; ne in

Germanicis quidem Bibliis.

" " twenty-seventh line, read debetis for deletis. " " twenty-eighth line, read alias for alios.

" " last line, read et qua; for ac qui, and for ex read en.

" 291, twenty-first line, read interpretati for interpretate.

" " twenty-third line, read vives for vires.

" " twenty-eighth line, read novam for noram.

" " twenty-ninth line, read quidem for decidem.

" " last line, insert nunc before novam, and read authore for out Awe.

" 292, note, first line, read prccsideo for prmfideo.

" " third line, read iranslationem for translatione. " " eleventh line, read nostras for nostras.

*' " twenty-second line, rea^d fa cillime for facimile, also ^imiZi for airntZi. " " twenty-fifth line, read Carthaginiense for Carthaginensi.

" 294, note, eighth line, read ordini for ordine. " " eleventh line, period at termlnatam.

" " seventh line from bottom, dele qui connezi subimet.

" 295, note, second line, read prophetaverunt for propherareunt.

" 296, first note, last line, put a colon at christianus. " " second note, first line, read scriniaria for seriniaria.

" 299, note at star, fifth line, read sive for sine.

" " note at dagger, third line, read duntazai for dum Zazat.

" 311, note, first line, read Jj^two-a J for £^icjo-aj. *' " fifth line, read <yov for (tov. " " seventh line, read avaTo'\r)v for evaroXriv. " " twelfth line, read £K\oya5 for £K\oy(o<:. " " last line, read £^ for £k.

" 317, note, first line, read ^aXfiov for ipa'Xnoyv.

Date Due

£/ .

^

BS1135 .T51

The arguments of Romanists from the

Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library

1 1012 00011 7814

i»4

igmm.:'^^^