Notes on the Romish Controversy.

I.-THE RULE OF FAITH.

THE question, What is the Rule of Faith? is the most important which Romanism suggests. It lies at the basis of the controversy. When once it has been settled, and not till then, we have a test by which to try every other disputed position. It is therefore of the utmost consequence, that on this point our views should be clear and accurate.

The method which has generally been pursued in discussing it with Romanists, appears to us extremely faulty. An attempt is made first to establish the sufficiency of Scripture, and then the inauthoritativeness of tradition and the Church. This exposes to numerous objections. They are not indeed very formidable; but are frequently subtle, and may thus lead many to think that the fundamental principle of Protestantism is by no means clearly true, while they keep out of sight the weakness of Romanism.

The proper course to be pursued will be seen from a statement of the inquiries which the subject suggests. These are two, the first having respect to the Word of God, and the second to the expounder of that Word. According to Romanists, "the Word of God includes Scripture and tradition, Scripture containing the Old and New Testaments, with the Apocrypha; and the authoritative expounder is the Roman Catholic Church. To maintain the truth in opposition to these assertions, the best plan is to attack the claims of the Apocrypha, tradition, and the Church. If these are successfully demolished, the Protestant position remains firm without requiring anything farther to be done for its defence. No matter how many difficulties may be started, with regard to the adoption of the Bible as the only record of God's revelation, and private judgment as the only human interpreter; we have no other record and no other interpreter, and therefore must rest satisfied with them. The difficulties are thus all shifted to the side of the Romanists, and the untenableness of their position clearly shown.

Turning to the arguments by which this result is arrived at, it is necessary to note, that there can be no controversy with respect to the authority of the Old and New Testaments. Both parties hold that these are inspired, and therefore the divinity of their origin cannot legitimately be made a matter of dispute. It is only a subject on which men differ that can be fairly debated; so that it is not only irrelevant for a Romanist to ask a Protestant to prove the divinity of the Scriptures, but it is a sure evidence either of grievous stupidity or of a firm determination to pervert the truth.

The point of disagreement is the authority of the Apocrypha and “unwritten tradition." The Romanist has to prove that the Apocrypha is part of the Word of God. Now, for this purpose, he has not the shadow of evidence. The books which are so styled were never admitted into the Jewish canon-were never quoted as inspired by Christ and the Apostles-and were never viewed as of equal authority by the early Church; while there is no proof from any other source that they were composed by men authorised to declare and record the will of God. These facts are of themselves quite decisive; and the Apocrypha must be set aside as having no claims to be admitted into the canon.t

With regard to "unwritten tradition," the Papist has the same point to prove. We admit that, if these can be shown to contain the Word of God, they are as binding as the Scriptures. But their claims cannot be substantiated. We care not whether they are said to be preserved in the writings

Catechism of the Council of Trent.

+ The Council of Hippo, held 393, acknowledged the Apocrypha as canonical; the Council of Carthage, held 397, confirmed the decree: but neither of these councils is œcumenical-and therefore to a Romanist neither of them authoritative. The Council of Trent, held 1545, must thus be received by him as the one which first gave authority to the books in question,

of the Fathers or otherwise. What we ask, and what we hold Romanists cannot give us, is, clear proof of the integrity and Divine origin of those dogmas and practices which they call tradition. We make no quarrel with its being unwritten. We therefore steer clear of those silly objections, arising from the fact that there was no written record in the patriarchal age. It would not in any way affect our argument, though there had been no Scripture, properly so called, till the time of Christ. What Romanists have to do is to show us that their traditions are Divine. These may indeed be old-we may trace them up to a remote antiquity, and, through the failure of historical light, not be able to discover the time of their origin; but our inability to tell the precise period when certain doctrines and practices were introduced into the Church, is no sure proof that they originated with its Founder. They may be countenanced by the Fathers, but it has to be proved that these men were inspired, and therefore competent to speak with authority. To allege that Protestants likewise appeal to tradition, and cannot support some of their religious practices otherwise, is quite irrelevant, and proves nothing for the Romanist; for were the assertion true, it would only prove the inconsistency of Protestants, but not the authority of tradition. Now, Romanists can neither prove the inspiration of the Fathers, nor trace any of their traditions to Jesus and His Apostles. We are, therefore, forced to put tradition in the same category with the Apocrypha. The Bible, as we have it, is thus of necessity the only authoritative Scripture.

The same mode of argument disproves the claims of the Romish Church to be the authoritative expounder of Scripture. Many advantages may be conceived as flowing from our having a living interpreter of Holy Writ, who is miraculously guided in his exposition; many disadvantages may be imagined as resulting from the exercise of private judgment. But to occupy our time with discussing these subjects is to do little to facilitate our discovery of the truth. The question is one of fact and in this case simply is, Has the Romish Church any just ground for claiming infallibility? To settle this it is quite unnecessary to appeal to the Scriptures. We have only to read the history of that Church, in order to see a refutation of the claims which have been put forward in her behalf. We find within her differences as to the province and residence of infallibility. Romanists are hopelessly at variance whether the Pope or a council, or the Pope and council combined, are to be held as authoritative. This difference does not, indeed, disprove the existence of infallibility in the Romish Church; but when we examine the bulls of popes and the decrees of councils, we find them presenting the most glaring contradictions, and evidencing not only human weakness, but human depravity. We arrive, then, at the conclusion, that her history is a complete refutation of her assumption of infallibility.

Another way of disproving the claims of the Romish Church, is to show that the term church, as used in the New Testament, is never used to denote either a pope or a council. From this it follows that promises made to the Church cannot be claimed by Papists for their depositaries of infallibility. We read of the church at Corinth, and the church in the house of Nymphas, and thus see that it designates an assembly of Christians, and not a mere congregation of priests. To argue, therefore, that the promises which Christ made to His Church are made to the handful of men whom Romanists choose to regard as the Church, is coolly to assume what requires to be proved, to take for granted an identification which does not exist.

Again, it may be shown that in no instance does Christ promise to enable His Church to decide infallibly with respect to matters of faith and practice. Perpetuity is indeed guaranteed her for He will be with her till the end of the world; but this is only another form of asserting that there shall never fail Him faithful servants on the earth. Authority is indeed given her to exercise discipline; but the bestowment of power is no proof that it cannot be abused. The position of the magistrate is one of power, but not, therefore, of infallibility.

But even though this could not be proved, it can be shown that the Romish Church is not the Church of Christ. Her doctrinal errors-her idolatrous practices-her bloodthirsty spirit, all prove that she is not of Him. He taught men to worship, love, and serve God; He purified their hearts by His Spirit; He knit them by the bonds of a spiritual brotherhood; He sent forth influences which tended to refine the feelings and secure peace. Rome knows neither His Spirit nor His teaching, and cannot therefore claim His name.

But

If all these positions can be proved, we are forced to assert the right of private judgment. It does not matter what divisions among Christians, what perversions of Scripture, and heresies, may result from its exercise, we cannot reasonably abjure it.

We have thus given the outlines of an argument, which our readers would do well to fill up. Our limits do not permit us to be lengthy, but we have endeavoured to indicate with distinctness the line of thought which should be pursued, and the points which should be most carefully pondered. Let our young men set about the study of this question with earnestness and energy, and prove themselves worthy descendants of those noble defenders of the faith who broke the power of Popery and Prelacy in our country. Let them arise and gird themselves for the contest. Let there be no heartlessness-no pandering to the prejudices of the world-no cringing to human authority-no apathetic sloth-no indifference. As vital truth is at stake

as man's all is perilled, let every nerve be strained to wield well those weapons which, though not carnal, are mighty through God to the pulling down of the strongholds of Satan.

Alleged Difficulties in the Gospels.

No. II.

(6.) STRESS is laid upon the fact that Matthew represents the fig-tree as withering immediately, while Mark says that it was not till the next day the disciples discovered the effects of the curse upon it.

But there is no real discrepance. The one writer groups together all the circumstances connected with the one occurrence; the other pays more attention to the order of time in his narrative. Hence, Matthew states the fact of the cursing and the withering in one paragraph; while Mark interposes the account of the purification of the Temple. That the fig-tree withered immediately may be true; but there is nothing in the expression of surprise to which the disciples gave utterance to prove that they discovered this before they left the spot. The very fact that in a single night a tree fresh and growing became sapless and dead, was sufficient to fill them with astonishment, and lead them to exclaim "How soon is the fig-tree withered away!"

(7.) It is asserted too that the cursing of the tree was unworthy of Christ -an exhibition of petty rage.

To a man, however, who can discern the moral teaching of the fact, the matter will present itself in a very different light. The blighting of that fruitless tree was significant of the fearful doom which was impending on the corrupt Jewish nation, and foreshadows the end of every one whose works are not to the glory of God.

(8.) Luke xi. 5. "He that is not against us is for us" is said to be opposed to Matthew xii. 30, "He that is not with me is against me.

Differently expressed these two statements stand thus: He that is for us is not against us; and He that is not for us is against us. There is no contradiction here-not even the shadow of it; yet an infidel writer discovers a clear discrepancy, and makes it one of the grounds for rejecting the Gospels!

On the stupidity of such a man, and on the perverting influence of his prejudices, we need scarcely remark. This one instance of obtuseness of mind is enough to condemn his book as unworthy of perusal.

(9.) In Matthew xvi. 28, "There be some standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom," we are said to have a prophecy never fulfilled.

But the coming is not personal, as is clear from Mark ix. 1, in which the expression is given as "The kingdom of God coming with power"; in other words, the Church of Christ prospering in the earth.

(10.) Matthew, in speaking of the entry into Jerusalem, uses the plural when referring to the ass on which the Saviour sat. The infidel critic makes himself merry with this, and professes not to be able to see how Jesus could sit upon asses at the same time.

A little acquaintance with Scripture phraseology would have saved his mirth. In Judges xii. 7, it is written that they buried Jephthah "in the cities of Gilead. The meaning, of course is, as our translators have given it, "one of the cities." Matthew's mode of expression, therefore, is not singular.

Critical Notice.

THE SPIRIT OF THE BIBLE. By Edward Higginson. London: Edward Whit field. Pp. 521.-According to the author, the purpose of this book is to show "the spirit in which the Scriptures require to be read and interpreted, received and defended." "Between the perplexing letter-worship," he says, "of too many scripturists, and the sweeping rationalism which presumes to deny the possibility of a supernatural revelation, I desire to indicate the ground on which Rational Christianity may firmly take its stand, implying the Divine origin of Judaism." For this end, he endeavours to analyse the books of the Old Testament, and to show their religious worth; but his attempt is a failure. He has evidently undertaken his task with a view to execute it in the best possible manner. His work betrays no signs of haste, and no immature thought, like the writings of Parker and Emerson. He is not flippant and illiterate, like the secular brood of sceptics. On the contrary, there are abundant evidences of learning and elaborate thought. But, despite these commendations, the work is not, in the most important respects, a good one. Mr. Higginson has wrong views of the nature and extent of inspiration. He places the Bible on a level with the histories of Herodotus and Thucydides, and regards its composition as human. It differs from them in value only in what it records.

Now the question is, Is this true? It is quite foreign to the point to argue as Mr. Higginson and others have done, that the religious value of the Bible would not be impaired though inaccuracies in dates, historical details, and matters of science, were found in it. Our conception of what the character of a record of God's revelation ought to be, is no sure criterion of what it is. We have to do simply with a matter of fact. Our business is to ascertain what conclusion the evidence in the case warrants; and then we may safely dispense with inquiring into those speculations in which Coleridge, Higginson, and others have thought fit to indulge.

Now, if we are to credit Christ and His Apostles-and we must do so if we admit the Divine authority of their commission, the Jewish Scriptures have a value far above that which Mr. Higginson accords to them. No one reading the New Testament could infer that either Jesus or the Disciples viewed these records as being in numerous instances too highly coloured-as containing explanations of occurrences which were quite erroneous or as tracing up continually to the hand of God events with which He had nothing to do. Moses and the Prophets" have a higher standard accorded them, and their writings are distinctly characterised as God-breathed.

When this has been fairly settled, then all the objections from variations, alleged errors, &c., go for nothing. In every case we may not be able to show a harmony between this truth at which we have arrived and a fact; but we are not warranted, on that account, either wantonly to deny the fact or let go the truth. We must accept both. If this method, which is the only rational one, be followed, the

orthodox view of inspiration will be easily established, and the theories of Cole. ridge, Kenrick, Higginson, &c., shown to be gossamer's webs.

Equally erroneous are Mr. Higginson's views of the character of the religion of the Old Testament. He is avowedly Unitarian. In sacrifice he sees no foreshadowing of the Atonement. He asserts, indeed, that sacrifice was founded on the notion that God was so like man as to partake of His food when offered the best of it on the altar. But this assertion is too gross to have much weight. Sacrifice and sin have been invariably linked by all nations; and the altar was raised, not to feed, but to propitiate Deity. Now the question is, How could sacrifice in this connection originate?-and the only answer is, By Divine appointment. But this leads to conclusions which Mr. Higginson rejects, and shows that the New Testament doctrine, viz., that Jesus bore our sins in His own body on the tree, was foreshadowed in the old economy.

Mr. Higginson was thus by no means qualified for his work. He has failed to apprehend the religious value of the Jewish ritual. He has not discerned the truths which run through the Book and bind it together in a harmonious whole. He has allowed his own conception of what ought to be have too much influence upon his judgment, when seeking to ascertain what is. The principles on which he has proceeded are thus unsound, and his criticisms in numerous instances false. For general study, the book cannot be recommended. Although containing much that is valuable, and although carefully written, its religious teaching is so thoroughly at variance with what we conceive to be truth, that we cannot accord it our approbation.

Selections.

HOW CURIOUS LIFE IS!" Curious" is the word: we wouldn't have any other, for it expresses the very thing. How curious it is, from the cradle to the grave! The hopes of the young are curious-reaching forward into the future, and building castles in perspective for their possessors, that will crumble before them ere they arrive at that spot in time where their fabrics are located. How curious it is, the first dawning of love, where the young heart surrenders itself to its dreams of bliss, illumined with stars and garnished with moonshine! How curious it is, when matrimony crowns the wishes, and cares, fancied to be surmounted by ardent hearts, are found to be just commenced! How curious it is! says the young mother, as she spreads upon hers the tiny hand of her babe, and endeavours to read in its dim lines the fortunes of her child. Curious indeed would such revealings be, could she there read them. How curious it is, the greed for gain that marks and mars the life of man, leading him away after strange gods, forgetting all the object and good of life in a heartless chase for a phantom light, that leaves him at last in threefold Egyptian darkness! How curious it is, the love of life that clings to the old, and draws them back imploringly to the scenes of earth-begging for a longer look at time and its frivolity, with eternity and its joys within their reach! How curious it is, when at last the great end draws nigh-the glazing eye, the struggle, the groan, proclaiming dissolution, and the still clay that denotes the extinguishment of the spark known as life! How curious it is, that the realities of the immortal world should be based upon the crumbling ashes of this, and that the path to infinite light should lie through the dark shadow of the grave! How curious it is, in its business and pleasures, its joys and sorrows, its hopes and fears, its temptations and triumphs! And as we contemplate life in all its phases, we must exclaim--" How curious it is!"-Shillaber.

WHAT IS AGE?-But know that age is not made up of a multitude of years -though that be the vulgar reckoning-but of a multitude of experiences; and that a man at thirty, if good for much, must be old. How long he may continue in the prime of life, God decrees. Many men of the most magnificent minds-for example, Michael Angelo-have been all-glorious in power and majesty at fourscore and upwards. But one drop of water on the brain can at any hour make it barren as desert dust. So can great griefs.-Professor Wilson.