written and recognized at the time,* are intelligible to a child. I see not how this conclusion can in any way be evaded. If the child of Eunice could and did know them, why may not my child, and your child, and any child of ordinary understanding? And what do we want more for a rule of faith, than a Bible which a child can understand? The Bible then cannot be insufficient as a rule of faith, through any want of perspicuity in it. That point is settled. But Paul says something more to Timothy about these same Scriptures, "which," he says, 66 are able to make thee wise unto salvation." Why the apostle talks as if he had taken lessons from Luther. When did he live? They say that the Protestant religion is only three hundred years old; but here is a man who lived well nigh eighteen hundred years ago, that writes amazingly like a Protestant about the Holy Scriptures. He says (and I have just been looking at the Greek to see if it is so there, and I find that it is,) they are able to make thee wise unto salvation. Now who wishes to be wiser than that?-and if they can make one thus wise, they can make any number equally wise. So then the Scriptures * On examination it will appear that the case is still stronger than our Author states it. The Apostle Paul took Timothy to travel with him as a fellow-labourer when he visited Derbe and Lystra (Acts xvi. 1-3). This is commonly dated A.D. 52. Bishop Pearson, in his Annales Paulini, makes it a year sooner. But it does not appear that any one Book of the New Testament was at that time written: the only Scriptures, therefore, which Timothy could have known "from a child" were the Scriptures of the Old Testament. In these it appears that he was diligently instructed; and these alone, were able to make him wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." But if the Scriptures of the Old Testament alone were able to make a child wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, how much more the Scriptures of the New Testament ! For I suppose that no one will affirm, or imagine, that the Scriptures of the New Testament are not much more plain, in their statements concerning Jesus Christ and Hfs Gospel, than those of the Old. On this point it is only needful to refer to Matt. xiii. 16, 17; and 2 Cor. iii. 12-18.-A. S. T. 66 can be known by children, and can make wise to salvation those who know them. This is Paul's decision, and here should be an end of the controversy. If this prove not the sufficiency of the Bible as a rule of faith and guide to salvation, I know not how anything can be proved. I will tell you what I have determined to do the next time a Roman Catholic* opens his mouth to me about the insufficiency and obscurity of our rule of faith. I mean to take hold of the sword of the Spirit by this handle-2 Tim. iii. 15; and I mean to hold on to this * Our readers will probably remember that Dr. Nevins wrote in the United States of America, where, in his time, Romanism was but little known, and the Romish controversy but little studied. No wonder therefore that he does not always write with all the accuracy of a practised Controversialist. He evidently uses Catholic for Romanist. This will never do. It is playing into the hands of the enemy. They make much use of the unguarded language of those Protestants, who concede to them the name of Catholics. It seems therefore desirable either to substitute the word Romanists for Catholics, throughout the Work, or at least to insert the word Roman before Catholic as Dr. Nevins has done in his first sentence; and this latter course we intend to adopt. WE are the true Catholics who hold fast the ancient Nicene Creed, and utterly reject all the unapostolical articles, which were appended to it in 1564, by the modern Creed of Pope Pius IV.; and we should keep in remembrance the excellent saying of good Philip Henry, "I am too much a Catholic, to be a Roman Catholic." For those only deserve the name of Catholics, who stedfastly maintain the faith once delivered to the Saints, and embrace, in the bonds of Christian love and affection, all those who hold that faith, however they may differ in minor matters and circumstantials; that is to say, the universal Church of Christ, excluding none whom we have any reason to hope that Christ has accepted. Besides prefixing the word Roman to Catholic, there are other slight alterations made here and there, in order to adapt some of the American expressions, used in the Work to our National feelings, and modes of thought and expression; and a few notes are occasionally added to illustrate, and enforce some of the points touched upon. But we are careful to retain the whole of the Author's matter, meaning and arrangements. A. S. T. weapon of heavenly temper, and to wield it manfully, until my opponent surrender or retreat. He cannot stand before it. But before I close this, I must say, that if the Scriptures which existed when Paul wrote to Timothy were able to make wise unto salvation, how much more are they with what has been added to the canon since! And here, by the way, we have an answer to the question which the Roman Catholic asks with such an air of triumph: "How, if this be your rule of faith, did Christians manage before the New Testament was written and received?" Very well; they had Scriptures enough to make them "wise unto salvation" as early as the time of Timothy; and they had, many years before that, all the Old Testament, if not part of the New. Now, with Moses and the prophets, and the psalms, and Matthew's gospel, and perhaps some others, together with a large number of divinely-inspired men, I think they must have managed very comfortably. One thing more I desire to say. It is this: that there is an advantage for understanding the Bible, which does not belong to any book whose author is not personally accessible. The advantage is, that we have daily and hourly opportunity to consult the Author of the Bible on the meaning of it. We can, at any moment we please, go and ask Him to interpret to us any difficult passage. We can lift off our eyes from the word of truth, when something occurs which we do not readily comprehend, and direct them to the throne of grace. And what encouragement we have to do this! James tells us, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." So then we have the Bible to inform and * That is to say, as early as the time when Paul and Timothy laboured together in the Gospel, parts of the New Testament might have then been written (particularly the Gospel according to St. Matthew), though not when Timothy was a child. See note in page 2.—A. S. T. guide us, and we have constant opportunities of consulting its Author in regard to its meaning. Is it not enough? I, for one, am satisfied. I can dispense with the fathers, &c. &c. 2. The Source of Heresies. The Roman Catholics say it is the Bible. They trace all the errors and divisions which prevail, to the Scriptures as their fountain. Do they know whose book it is which they thus accuse? How dare they charge God with being "the Author of confusion"? But is the Bible to blame for heresies? Christ gives a very different account of the matter. He says (Matt. xxii, 29) to the Sadducees, "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures." He makes ignorance of the Scriptures the source of heresies. He does not agree with the priests. It is very strange if the reading of the Scriptures is the cause of heresies in religion, that the Bereans, who searched them daily, because they would not take on trust even what Paul said, (and I suspect they would not have treated Peter any more civilly), did not fall into any of these errors. It would seem to have had quite a contrary effect, for it is added, "therefore many of them believed." (Acts xvii. 11,12). Whatever these Bereans were, it is clear that they were not good Roman Catholics. But after all, it is not surprising that these noble Bereans did not fall into any fatal error by reason of reading the Scriptures, since Peter says of Paul's hardest parts and most obscure passages, that they do nobody any harm, but such as are both "unlearned and unstable, and that they do them no harm, except they wrest them, that is, do absolute violence to them. (2 Peter iii, 16.) 3. Private Interpretation. It is known to every body how strenuously the Roman Catholics oppose the reading of the Bible; or rather I should say the reader exercising his mind on the Bible which he reads. He may read for himself, if he will only let the church think for him. He may have a New Testament, and he may turn to such passage as John iii, 16; "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, &c." or to that, Matt. xi, 28, 30; "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest, &c." and he may read the words, but then he must not attempt to put a meaning upon them; though it be very difficult to avoid attaching a sense to them, since they are quite as easy to be understood as they are to be read. But he must not do it. At his peril he must not. He is guilty of the crime of private interpretation, if he does. Before he pretends to understand those passages, he must inquire how the Church has always interpreted them, and what the popes and general councils have thought about them, and how all the fathers from Barnabas to Bernard, not one excepted, have understood them. Well now, it strikes me as rather hard upon the poor sinner, that he should be made to go through this long and difficult process before he is permitted to admire the love of God in the gift of his Son, and before he can go to Jesus for rest. And somehow I cannot help suspecting that it is not necessary to take this circuitous course; and that it is not so very great a sin, when one reads such passages, to understand them according to the obvious import of their terms. But the Roman Catholic asks, “Does not Peter condemn private interpretation?" And they point us to his 2nd Epistle, i, 20; "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation." Now you must know that Roman Catholics, though they have no great attachment to the Bible, are as glad as any people can be, when they can get hold of a passage of it, which seems to establish some tenet of theirs. And as only a very small portion of the Bible has even the appearance of favouring them, one may observe with what eagerness they seize upon, and with what tenacity they cling to, the rare passages which seem |