the Spirit of God is necessary to a saving understanding of the word." There is more in this apparently modest and pious assertion of the necessity of inward illumination to the saving understanding of the Scriptures than may at first appear. It leaves the Scriptures open to every visionary or enthusiast, and wholly destroys their credibility as a monument of our faith. The meaning of a book is to be made out from the natural sense of the terms and expressions it employs, as understood by the community which uses them. If something interior and invisible is necessary to determine that meaning, the book is a mere scrawl or riddle, and utterly unfit to serve any purpose for which written documents are needed or used among men. The words, "this is my body," have a meaning of themselves, which must be sought in the religious community for which the book containing them was written. If, then, a Presbyterian comes forward and tells us that these words mean "this is not my body, but bread," and grounds his assertion on the assumed fact, that he has the Spirit and we have not, we can only treat his assertion as a like folly would be treated in a civil court. The assertion of the necessity of the inward illumination to the saving understanding of the Scripture is, then, a flagrant contradiction of the assertion of the sufficiency of Scripture. It makes the Bible, in itself considered, virtually a sealed book, or a book of riddles, whose sense, if sense it have, only a few adepts can make out. Nothing could be more hostile to that sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures which Presbyterians profess to assert as their fundamental principle. These contradictions can surprise no one at all acquainted with sectarians. Iniquity and error must ever of necessity contradict themselves. Only justice and truth can be always consequent and self-consistent.

But let us pass to the examination of the Scripture testimony by which the Presbyterian divines attempt to prove that the written word contains every thing necessary and is the sole rule of faith and practice. The passage adduced is the same which was previously brought forward, and which we examined in our former article, namely, "All Scripture

*The Christian reader will readily understand we here neither deny nor mean to deny the necessity of divine grace, to enable one to make an act of faith meritorious in the sight of God. But an act of faith is one thing, and ascertaining the meaning of a text of Scripture quite another thing.

is given by inspiration of God," &c.; only it is now produced with the addition of the words, "that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." What more inapposite or inadequate to their purpose could they possibly allege? The holy apostle is here instructing his disciple Timothy, not giving directions to Christians generally. He speaks, moreover, of the Old Testament, the only Scriptures Timothy could have known from his childhood, since a great part of the New Testament was not written till after St. Paul wrote this Epistle, and the part which was written had, most likely, not yet been collected into a volume. If, then, the text quoted proves any thing to the purpose, it proves too much; for it proves that the Old Testament alone is sufficient, which Presbyterians would be as loath to admit as we. Such a conclusion might, indeed, be acceptable to Jews; but even Presbyterians must reject it at once. Then, again, the text by no means asserts or maintains the sufficiency of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, or of the New, or of both together. It simply indicates the Scriptures, and especially those of the Old Testament, the only Scriptures the holy apostle is then speaking of, as an excellent means of perfecting the man of God,-that is, the clergyman, the bishop, or pastor of souls, of thoroughly furnishing him for every good word and work. All this is true, and does not in the least suppose that the Scriptures contain every thing necessary and are of themselves alone sufficient for every purpose. It simply supposes that the clergyman will acquire perfection by the perusal and study of the Sacred Scriptures. If we exhort a young orator to study Demosthenes, and tell him that this study will perfect him as an orator, and furnish him with proper models for every species of composition, we by no means assert or imply that Demosthenes will absolutely suffice for every thing, that there will be no need of Greek grammar and lexicon, without which, perchance, Demosthenes might be a sealed book. Hence, this text, adduced by Presbyterians to prove that the Scriptures alone are sufficient for every thing, and are the sole rule of faith and practice, proves nothing to their purpose. It is one of those illusory and nugatory proofs with which this Confession of Faith abounds, and merely proves either the want of ingenuousness and strict integrity on the part of its framers, or the great difficulty they found in drawing "good and necessary consequences from the words of Scripture.

But, leaving this text, we turn to the consideration of the Scriptural authorities adduced for rejecting Catholic traditions. The pertinency and force of these authorities consist in a species of trick, which is any thing but ingenuous, and is altogether unworthy the character, we were about to say, even of Presbyterians. We are told that the Scriptures are so complete, that nothing is to be added to them "by the traditions of men,"-just as if any Catholic held that traditions of men were to be taken as the word of God! If the question turned on traditions of men, traditions broached and set up, after the apostles, by men who gave out their own visions, fancies, or excogitations for the word of God, we should be as ready, to say the least, to discard them as Presbyterians are. We grant, nay, earnestly contend, that all such traditions are to be discarded, and this is one reason why we do and must discard Presbyterianism itself, palpably a mere tradition of men, first concocted full fifteen hundred years after Christ and his holy apostles. These are not the traditions Catholics assert and contend for. Catholics say Christ and his apostles taught men, viva voce, many things which were not committed to writing, but which have been preserved faithfully in the doctrine and practice of the church, according to the admonition of the holy Apostle Paul:-"Stand firm, brethren, and hold the traditions you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle." 2 Thess. ii. 14. These traditions are not the traditions of men, but an integral part of the revealed word, the revelations and teaching of God (tradited) transmitted by men, who can and do transmit many things without writing, as they transmit language, and various practices and habits, which no one finds first, if at all, in books, but which every one learns long before opening a book.

If the Presbyterians had the candor to acknowledge these facts, or if their readers were aware of them, they would see, at a glance, that the passages adduced do not in the least impugn Catholic traditions. Those passages simply condemn traditions of men,-not traditions transmitted by men, but traditions which are of human origin, and which Catholics have always been, and are, the first and most strenuous to condemn. The first text adduced is from St. Paul. “Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." The Presbyterian divines bring forward this

passage as expressly condemning all traditions; but no selection could be more unfortunate for them. It not only says nothing against traditions, but is an awful denunciation of Presbyterianism, and an express command to all who would adhere to the Gospel of our Lord to hold it accursed. These divines would represent this text to mean, If anybody holds any doctrine to be divinely revealed not written in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, let him be accursed: therefore, let Papists, who hold traditional doctrines, be accursed. Yet there is no scholar but would be ashamed to pretend that this is the real meaning; and even Presbyterians themselves, if they would examine the context, would, on this point, agree with us. The Galatians had been converted to Christ by the Apostle St. Paul, who had taken great pains to make them understand that the Mosaical ceremonies were not only unnecessary, but, if observed in a Jewish spirit, and considered a necessary part of Christianity, even superstitious. Some Jewish teachers went among them, and persuaded them to embrace these same ceremonies as necessary, and thus caused them to turn again to the weak and poor elements of the Law. They observed days, and months, and years, and wished again to come under the Law. (iv. 9, 10, 21.) On learning this, the apostle wrote to them in terms of mingled holy indignation and burning charity. "I wonder that you are so soon removed from him who called you to the grace of Christ, to another gospel, which is not another, only there are some who trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." The meaning of St. Paul is clearly, If anybody, even an angel, come and preach to you the necessity of Jewish observances, let him be accursed; and, in a more general sense, If any one, even an angel, preach to you any doctrine contrary to that which we have preached, let him be accursed. That this is his meaning, and that the one given in the Confession is absurd, must be manifest to all who reflect that St. Paul says nothing here of a gospel written, but speaks simply of a gospel preached, -that the Four Gospels were not then written, certainly not that of St. John, which was not written till many years afterwards,—and that many other portions of the Scriptures were also as yet unwritten, as learned Presbyterians are themselves aware and admit. If the Presbyterian interpretation of the text were admitted, we should be required to reject every

writing of the apostles posterior to the date of the Epistle to the Galatians, even many of the Epistles of St. Paul himself, as another gospel than that which he preached to the Galatians, a conclusion which even Presbyterians must shrink from with horror. But, if many things were added to the New Testament, containing doctrines not found in the parts written prior to the Epistle in question, every one must see that St. Paul could have meant only what we have alleged, that is, If any one hold any thing contrary to the Christian traditions which you have received from us, let him be accursed. The Gospel preached to the Galatians must have been, to a great extent, if not exclusively, a traditional one. Consequently, the meaning of St. Paul must have been, If any one hold any doctrine contrary to that which has been given to you, whether in writing or orally, it matters not whether in the one mode or the other, let him be accursed. So far, then, from asserting that there must be no traditions, this text, as far as it goes, presupposes and teaches to the contrary.

The church has always cherished this maxim of the great apostle, written far more efficaciously in the convictions and practices of Christians than it can be on paper. If any one comes forward preaching any doctrine unknown before him, or irreconcilable with the dogmas already received, the language of Catholics has been from the first, Let him be anathema. On this ground any doctrine which is new is rejected as false: for, if new, it cannot be a doctrine of the apostles, but must be the offspring of the human intellect or fancy. There is no need of discussion, no need of a long course of reading. Is the doctrine contrary to what has been taught? Then it is false. If, per impossibile, an angel from heaven were to preach it, still it is false and to be rejected; for we know that the doctrines taught by the apostles are from God, and so confirmed by miracles, that it would be absurd not to receive them. We know, also, that God protects his church against even hell, whose gates can never prevail against it. We know this latter point from innumerable proofs, among which we reckon as not the least this very text of St. Paul, which commands us, if even an angel should come preaching any novelty contrary to the doctrine preached in the church, not to listen to him.

But what will become of Presbyterianism, if tried by this test, the touchstone furnished by the great apostle, the Doctor of Nations? What, in fact, is it itself, but a naked, un