correct on the whole, but only after the manner of other human books written on human subjects by judicious. authors.

We begin with the first paragraph of this chapter, which runs thus:

"Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God as to leave men inexcusable, yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing, which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased."

The doctrine laid down in this paragraph it is then attempted to support by arguments; but what kind of argument can be given in an introduction to the belief of Scripture, and in support of its authority? Common sense tells us that it cannot be Scripture itself; else, one might as well quote the authority of the Koran to prove the Koran, and the forger of a will might adduce the very will itself as a proof of its genuineness. Yet, notwithstanding this plain dictate of common sense, the framers of the Confession quote Scripture all at once, and thus open the way to that long string of false, inconsistent, and absurd proofs with which the book abounds. The plainest rules of logic seem to have been quite beyond the reach of these powerful geniuses. Faith must be reasonable, that is, founded on reasonable motives, or motives capable of forcing the assent of a judicious mind; for if not, it becomes fanaticism, superstition, credulity, downright nonsense. It is this reasonableness of motives which makes the distinction between Christianity and Mahometanism or paganism.

But waiving this want of logical strictness and propriety, and taking up the Scripture proofs adduced, we shall find that the Scripture says nothing at all of what it is made to say. We select from the passage quoted the three following propositions which it contains, and which we maintain are unsupported by Scripture, utterly false, and even contradicted by others in the same passage. 1. That what the Lord revealed at sundry times and in divers manners was

committed wholly to writing. 2. That this makes the Holy Scripture most necessary. 3. That the former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people are now ceased.

1. The first position assumed, that "it pleased the Lord to commit the same (that which he had revealed at sundry times, and in divers manners) wholly unto writing," is attempted to be proved by the following Scriptural quotations, which we scrupulously transcribe.

“Luke i. 3, 4. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed. Rom. xv. 4. For whatscever things were written aforetime were written for our learning; that we, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope. Isaiah viii. 20. To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Rev. xxii. 18."

Now, we ask, is there any thing in those passages to prove the peculiar position assumed in the text, namely, that the revelations of God were committed wholly unto writing? These quotations suppose that things were written, and written for our instruction and comfort; but where is the passage proving that all was written? There is none; and hence these quotations are nothing more than a vain display of Scriptural erudition, or rather, a petty theological trick, and dialectical sleight of hand, by which evidence is brought for only a portion of a proposition, and still the whole proposition is confidently asserted. As if one were to say, Something was written, therefore all was written; which is a form of argument too obviously false to need refutation.

We will, however, go rapidly over these texts, and show that they have no bearing on the question. The last, from Revelations, or the Apocalypse, xxii. 18, is not expressly cited, which shows, perhaps, that little reliance is placed on it in support of the position assumed. The text is, "I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book; if any man shall add to these things, God shall add upon him the plagues written in this book." This reference, then, is intended to convey the impression, that, if any one adds any thing to Scripture, he will incur the wrath of God, and consequently that all has been written. But what an abuse of Scripture is not such an interpretation! For any reader that will take up this chapter will

see that the meaning of the writer of the Apocalypse is, that no one should either add any thing to, or subtract any thing from, that Apocalypse, as is most obvious and expressly stated in the very passage. Here is, then, the queer argument used by the writers of the confession: St. John, at the conclusion of his Apocalypse, threatens with the vengeance of Heaven the one who shall either add to or subtract from his book, or the one who shall interpolate and corrupt his book; therefore all things are written in Scripture!

The text taken from Isaias,-" To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them," is not more to the purpose. These words of the prophet have long been the cant of Scotch fanatics; and this is strange enough; for the "testimony" there mentioned naturally leads to the notion of tradition, which it is their great object to discard. Any one who will read the passage will find it somewhat obscure; but the meaning which will present itself to his mind will be, that the prophet inveighs against those who consulted pythons and wizards, and exhorts them to have recourse rather to the law and to the testimony. But no powers of imagination can draw from it the conclusion that every thing is written, even that which was revealed by Christ; for Isaias speaks of a law written hundreds of years before Christ.

The text from St. Paul to the Romans says merely, that what was written was written for our learning; but it does not say that the whole of God's revelation was committed to writing. In fine, the passage from St. Luke is brought forward with no better grace. The passage states, that the writer, after having received full information from eyewitnesses, wrote for the purpose of giving to Theophilus a full certainty in regard to the matters of which he wrote. But it does not say that he wrote all that was revealed. It is true, the passage states that the writer had "perfect understanding of all things from the very first," and, without entering into a discussion as to the propriety of the translation used by Protestants, we say, it is perfectly evident St. Luke does not mean that he wrote absolutely every thing which Christ did or taught; for if so, he would have been guilty of a barefaced lie, in the very first line of his Gospel, Since St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John say a great many things which he does not record; therefore he must mean

merely that he was fully informed of all the things which he wrote about. Now, we hope, all can see the difference between the assertion, I vouch for the truth of every thing I write, and this other assertion, I write with truth every thing that can be written upon the subject. These remarks show, with absolute evidence, that none of the texts adduced by the Presbyterian Confession of Faith prove that the revelations of God were committed wholly unto writing. This is sufficient to prove to the Presbyterians that their tenets are totally ungrounded, that their faith has no foundation, and that they believe without any motive or reason capable of making any impression on a reasonable man. But their doctrine is not only purely gratuitous; we can even prove, by the most obvious arguments, that it is absolutely false, and clearly at variance with Scripture itself, and with common sense.

St. John concludes his Gospel with the following declaration:-"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." Who, in the face of this declaration, will dare assert that every thing is written? Here, as a manifest proof that it never was the plan of divine Providence that all should be written, the evangelist closes his account with the avowal, that he knows many things more that Christ did, many more words that he uttered, and many more examples that he gave, than he commits to writing. The same apostle concludes his last two Epistles with a declaration which seems to have been written purposely to contradict the assertion of Presbyterians. 66 Having many things to write unto you, I would not by paper and ink; for I hope that I shall be with you, and speak face to face." The apostle had many things to write, and consequently these things were necessary, or at least useful, and still he declines writing them. Who will, in the face of this declaration, maintain that every thing pertaining to the revelation of God is written? Again, St. Paul, no doubt, made important regulations concerning the Lord's Supper, as he asserts in those words,-"The rest I will set in order when I come."-1 Cor. xi. 34. Can Presbyterians point out the place where these regulations are found? Furthermore, the same apostle, writing to the Thessalonians, tells them,"Remember you not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? and now you know what withholdeth,

that he may be revealed in his time."-2 Thess. ii. 5, 6. The Thessalonians, then, had learned orally from St. Paul, and knew what withheld Antichrist. What is that thing Is it written anywhere? There is, then, a revelation which certainly was not committed to writing.

The first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles expressly states that Jesus Christ employed the forty days which elapsed between his resurrection and ascension in teaching his apostles," for forty days appearing to them, and speaking of the kingdom of God."-verse 3. And now where are those heavenly instructions given by Christ, risen from the dead, to his apostles, who were now, in a great measure, freed from that carnal sense and those grovelling ideas which had besotted their hearts during their former intercourse with him? Those instructions which lasted forty days take up only a few lines in the Scriptures; whereas, the discourse of our Lord on the eve of his death, a discourse which could have lasted but a few hours, takes up five chapters. No doubt, these discourses for forty days were of the greatest importance, since the sacred writer says they related to the kingdom of God; and who can doubt but that the necessity of giving those instructions was one of the great objects of the stay of the Man-God among mortals? Scarcely any thing of these discourses is written; not that the apostles had forgotten them, but because it was not deemed proper to write them. This fact, taken in connection with another, shows how absurd and untenable is the Protestant theory about the sufficiency of Scripture. History represents to us the Christian Church springing from its cradle with dogmas, rites, practices, fasts, feasts, sacraments; and yet there is no direct mention of many of those things in Scripture, at most only a remote or obscure allusion to a few. Who, then, can resist the conclusion, that the apostles received upon those points instructions which they delivered orally, and which they wrote, not with ink on paper or parchment, but in a more substantial, imperishable, and authentic way, in the habits and practice of the faithful? Many things, in particular concerning the sacred rites of divine institution which we call sacraments, are not mentioned in Scripture; but such rites were unquestionably written in the practice and habits of Christians; which was a safer way to propagate them than writing them in a book, especially as the latter way had many inconveniences, since the pagans should not be