Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, No. 3

THE Bif JiE AND TRADITION, WITHOUT FURTHER REVELATION, AN INSUFFICIENT GUIDE.

1. — In the former numbers of this series it has been proved that more revelation is neither unscriptural nor unreasonable, but indispensably necessary to the very existence of the church of God on the earth. In this number it will be shewn that without further revelation the Bible is an insufficient guide. That part of the Bible called the New Testament was written many years after the establishment of the Christian church. How was the church founded and governed before the New Testament was written ? Answer : by the revelations of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, speaking through the apostles and prophets. These revelations were verbal, and not written : were delivered by word of mouth, and not with pen and ink. Large and numerous churches were established in Palestine, in Asia, in Europe, and amons the various nations of the eastern hemisphei-e, which were abundantly blessed with revelations, with prophecies, -with dreams and visions, with the ministry of angels, and with the mu'aculous powers and manifestations of the Holy Spirit ; and yet they had not the writings of the New Testament.

2. — If the church could be founded, and grow, and flourish, and be perfected without the New Testament writings : if she could, through verbal revelation, learn every principle of doctrine, and be taught in every duty, diiring the most of the first century, the same gift of revelation and prophecy could have instructed her in all succeeding generations, even though the New Testament had never been written. If inspired apostles, prophets, and other officers could perfect the Saints in the first centui-, surely the same kind of officers could perfect them in aJl future ages. Written revelations were never intended to supersede verbal and continued revelation through the living ministry. If the church of Christ had continued on the earth, successive apostles and prophets would have continued with her, endowed with all the powers and gifts of the first ; and the revelations in each successive generation ■would have been equally sacred with those given at the first ; and there would have been no such thing thought of as the canon of scripture being full and complete.

3. — There are many things practised by both Romish and Protestant churches which the scriptures do not clearly reveal, therefore they must both of them consider that the scriptures are not a sufficient guide. We are informed in scripture that . marriage is ordained of God, but we are not informed in scripture who has the right to officiate in this ceremony. Who can tell from the New Testament anything about ■ the order to be observed in relation to this subject ? We read that " what God hath joined together let no man put asunder f but through what particular office does God join together the sexes in matrimony ? Can laymen officiate ? Can those out • of the church officiate ? Can a woman officiate ? Can the parties join themselves together in matrimony, in the name of the Lord ? Who can answer these questions from the Bible alone? No one. The BiWe does not guide the church in this important ordinance.

4. — Who can tell from the Bible whether teachers and deacons have authority to baptize, or not? Baptism is an important ordinance, and should be administered by proper authority ; but can any one in the church administer it? Can private members baptize ? Can women baptize ? Does the Bible anywhere forbid them, or say that they are not authorized ? John the Baptist, who held the priesthood of Aaron, had authority to baptize. Apostles, elders, and evangelists baptized. Did the authority extend to any lower "officers or members ? The Bible does not inform us ; therefore the Bible is not a sufficient guide.

6. — Again, what officers in the church have a right to lay on hands for the gift of the Holy Spirit ? Can any but- apostles administer the spirit by this sacred ordinance ? Ananias was sent to Paul to baptize him, and lay his hands upon him, that he " might be filled with the Holy Ghost." Was Ananias an apostle ? or did he hold some lower office ? Philip could baptize the Samaritans, while Peter and John laid hands upon both men and women for the gift of the Holy Ghost. The great question is, can any but apostles lay on hands in the ordinance of confirmation ? The Bible does not answer this question, therefore the Bible is not a sufficient guide.

6. — It is admitted that the Lord's Supper is a divine ordinance; but who is authorized to break the bread and bless it, and also the wine, and administer it to the Saints ? Can teachers or deacons do this with authority ? Can private members or women administer in this solemn ordinance ? There is nothing in the New Testament that either authorizes or forbids them to do it. Can any one, without being instructed by new revelation, administer the Lord's Supper in his name, with his authority, and by his sanction ? The Bible does not answer this question, therefore the ySSble is not a sufficient guide.

7. — In what particular points does a teachef's duty differ from a deacon's? Wherein do the duties of elders, evangelists, and pastors differ ? What authority has one which the others do not possess ? All these are questions which the Bible does not plainly answer, yet to be a sufficient guide, it should answer all such questions definitely.

8. — Is infant baptism right or wrong ? Does the Bible anywhere teach infant bap- ' tism by command or example ? If infant baptism be rights the Bible has not informed ' us of it, therefore it must be an insufficient guide. If infant baptism, be v«Tong, atwhat age should children be baptized ? Upon this question the Bible also is silent.

9. — Should the members or officers of the church lay their hands upon little children, and- pray for them, and bless them after the example that Jesus has given or not ? This is a question that cannot be settled by the Bible.

10. — Should all the saints wash one another's feet, or is this an ordinance limited to the apostles and officers of the church ? The Bible again is silent, and does not plainly answer the question.

11. — Again, must the seventh day or the first day of the week be kept holy unto the Lord ? The New Testament does not clearly answer this question. There is rather more evidence in that book for keeping holy the Sabbath day or Saturday than there is for keeping the first day or Sunday. The New Testament is very indefi- ' nitc on this subject, and therefore it is an insufficient guide.

12. — Furthermore, where in theBible does it say that the king and people in England ought to revolt from the Romish Church, and form a church of their own by act of parliament? If the Bible were a sufficient guides why was an act of parlia.: ment necessary as another guide to form the English Church ? If the Bible were a sufficient guide, why was another book made, called the " Book of Common Prayer," and the people compelled to give heed to it under pain of banishment, and even deaffi itself? If the articles of religiob, contained in the New Testament were a sufficient guide, why were " Thirty Nine Articles" more, enforced upoli the people by acts of parliament, and the people butchered and murdered because they could not conscientiously oomply with them? It is certain that this newly-formed-pairliament-made church considered the Bible to be very deficient as a guidej or they iiever would have' resorted td such blood-thirsty murderous measures to eStabUsh other books in additioit ' t& the Bible.

13. — If Protestafits suppose the Bible to be a sufficient guide, as they are constantly telling their followers, will they be so kind as to point out what part of that sacred '

bsolc, called Luther, Calnn, Cranmsr, Wesley, and hosts of others, to preach, baptise, and adminster many other ordinances sach as the ancient church adnunistered? Lt. deed, what part of the Bible calls and commissions any of the nunisters of the present day? It can be said without any fear of contradiction, that the Bible nowhere has cued a single individual to the work of the ministry for the last seventeen centuries. Therefore, for the calling of the ministry, the Bible is an insufficient guide.

14. — Again, what part of the Bible has established the salaries of the different officers ■of the church ? If it be necessary that preachers should hare wage?, how much shall it be ? How much more shall an apostle get than a prophet ? u a bishop get from teii to twenty thousand pounds for one year's preaching, how much should an inspired :apostle or prophet get ? Or how much should some of the lower officers have ? Tha Kew Testament does not tell us the amount of wages religious hirelings should have, therefore, if it be important to know, the Bible is an insufficent guide. It says, howeveir, that apostles should " take neither purse nor scrip," but it leaves us entirely m the dark as to how much bishops, arch-bishops, and other officers should have. Would it not be a wise plan for an act of parliament to increase theu' wages a little, lest they suffer ? We see plainly that the Bible is not a sufficient guide in many, very many points, as the dfliigs of the whole Protestant world' most plainly declare.

IS. — Let us now see whether the Boman Catholics consider the Bible a sufficffini guide. They plainly tell us in their writings, that they do not. So far, then, thej are consistent. But what do they suppose makes up the deficiency? They answer, * TRADITION," or the " unwritten word " of God, as it was spoken by the apos. ties, and handed down uncorrupted to the present day. The Bight Reverend Doctor Milner, a very able and learned Catholic bishop, says, " The Catholic rule of faith, as I stated before, is not merely, the written word of God, but the whole word of God, ioth written and unwritten ; in other words. Scripture and Tradition, and thess propounded and explained by the Catholic Church."* The Catholics do not believe nn any later revelations than what were given in the first age of Christianity : this may be seen in their writings. Dr. Milner, in speaking of the Papist churches, says, '' It is a fundamental maxim with them all, never to admit of any tenet, but such as' is believed by all the bishops, and was believed by their predecessors up to the apoiiles themselves."f According to this, the Romanists never admit any new tenet. With their views, no hew revelations can be given — all things believed or received by liiem must be traced back through all " their predecessors up to the apostles themselves :" they are not permitted to believe any thing which their fathers were ignorant of. When any thing is presented to them, the question is not, whether it is a new revelation from God, but they immediately inquire, has it been believed by the church since the first age? If it has not, it is rejected. The Catholic church does not claim the assistance of the Spirit to reveal any thing new, " but merely," as Bishop Milner •espresses himself, she claims "the aid of God's Holy Spirit, to enable her truly to decide what her faith is, and has ever been in such articles as have been madt Junown to her by Scripture and Tradition.''

16. — After revelation ceased to be given, and, consequently, the church of Christ «eased its existence on the. earth, many of the first apostates pretended that scriptui« d tradition were a sufficient guide, and that nothing new was needed. Irenseua, ■who lived in the second century, seems to have forgotten that God placed in the church inspired men to constantly instruct her by new revelation, and, like all subsequent apos&tes lays great stress upon tradition. He says, « SUPPOSING THE APOS- TLES HAD NOT LEFT US THE iSCRIPTUBES, OUGHT WE NOT STILL TO HAVE FOLLOWED THE ORDINANCE OP TRADITION, which they -coDsignei to those to whom they committed the churches ? It is this ordinance of' tradition," continues he, " which many nations of barbarians, believing in Christ," follow, without the use of letters or ink."§ Tertullian, who lived at the close of iha same century, finding the scriptures ah insufficient guide, appeals to tradition instead of New Revelation. He says, " We begin,' therefore, wiUi laying it dovra as a maxim, that these men," (speaking of the opponent of his church) " ought not to be allowed

» "End of ControTersy," Letter x. p. 125. t Vut Letter xu. p. 166.

X Ibidt'Letter'xii.'p. 168. § Advers. Heeres. Letter iv c. 61.

to argue at all from scripture. In. fact," continues he, " these disputes about thesense of scripture, have generally no other effect than to disorder either the stomach or the brain. It is therefore the wrong method to appeal to the scriptures, since these afford either no decision, or, at most, only a doubtful one. And even, rf this were not the case, still, in appealing to scripture, the natural order of things requires that we should first inquire to whom the scriptures belong. From whom, and by whom, and on, what occasion, and to whom that tradition was delivered by which we became Christians."* This author in another work,t as Doctor Milner states, " proves, at great length, the absolute necessity of admitting tradition no less than scripture as the rule of faith, inasmuch as many important pointsj which he mentions, cannot be proved without it."

17. — Doctor Milner, to show that the tradition of the apostles, together with the scriptures, was the only rule of faith in the early ages of his church, cites us to the writings of St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Cyprian, Origen, &c., of the third centnxy, — St. Basil, and St. Epiphanius of the fourth century,— and St. John Chrysos- torn at the beginning, and St. Vincent of Lerins, at the end of the fifth century.. All these writers, instead of contending for the great and infallible guide, namely, NEW BEVELATION, which instructed the church during the first century, haya contended mra:elyfor ancient scripture and tradition as their only guide — as their only rule of faith. Thus we can see, Low early apostacy succeeded Christianity— we can see, how early, the rule of faith was changed.

18. — If all the decrees and decisions of the Pope and general councils among the Catholics be examined, it will be span that such decrees and decisions profess to be founded, not upon new revelation, but upon ancient scripture or tradition. She professes that her general councils are guided by the Holy Ghost in ascertaining what the apostolical traditions are, but that the Holy Ghost does not give anything new. That these are really the views of the Catholics, may be perceived on almost every page of some of their standard works. The Right Rev. Bishop Milner, in his " End of Religious Controversy," has very definitely, and at some length, set forth this view. J. Murdoch, a Roman Catholic Bishop, has highly recommended a work by Joseph/ Mumford, entitled " Question op Questions," or " Who ought to be our Judge in. all Controversies ? " In this work the author states most clearly that the Roman Catholic Church, "PRETENDS TO NO NEW REVELATIONS, BUT ONLY. TO DECLARE CLEARLY WHAT SHE FINDS TO HAVE BEFORE BEEN REVEALED." $ These general councils are considered infallible, not because they are inspired with the word of God direct to themselves, for this power they deny, but because they suppose the Holy Ghost assists them to find out ancient tradition. We again quote from the last-mentioned work.

19. — " Now to see what the councils on their part are to do ; I must tell you, that ' then' chief business is to examine the points in controversy ; hearing all that occurs for the one side and the other, and permitting several replies, if any remain, in due time to be made.' After this diligence is used, they consider what seems most con-,- formable to the word of God, and every one's vote is passed upon this particular.' But here I must tell you, that by the word of God, all councils, and orthodox believers have ever understood, not only God's written word, contained in scriptureii but a,lso his unwritten word made known to the Church ONLY by tradition, which' tradftion also is, and was ever accounted by the church the very best and surest interpreter of the scripture. The votes therefore of the fathers assembled in council are epianded, not only of what they think to be conformable to God's word written in scripture, but also how conformable such a point is, or is not, to that traditioa , which they have all received from the fathers of their church, as delivered to them from their fathers for God's word, by tradition committed to their forefathers as such, from the' apostles themselves." §

20. — Let "no one suppose that the Catholics believe in new revelation ; for in the above.quotation it is expressly asserted that, " the unwritten word is made known to the Church ONL Y hy tradition," and that this tradition must come through tiieir .

* Prsesorip. Advers. Hseres. edit. Khenan, pp., 36, 37. t De. Corona Milit,

\ " Qdestion pf Questions," Sec. xxiv. par. 14. , § Ibid. Sec. xi;?. 2.

fathers "from the Apostlei themselves," The business of the Catholic counclLr, then, is, not to get any word from God direct to themselves, but to determine what God said to the Apostles. That this is all that they pretend to do, .is also evident from the words of Vincentius Lirinensis, as quoted by Mumford ; he says, *' This only, and nothing but this, the Catholic Church does do by the decrees of her council ; that what before they had received only by tradition from their ancestors, that now they leave consigned in authentical writing to all posterity.* Counails,~then, are convened to determine traditions — they are convened to write tradition* in the form of decrees. Now all this is good as far as it goes, but it stops infinitely short of the true Rule of Faith, established in the apostolical church, namely, DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE REVELATION through her officers, whether assembled in council or' dispersed iadividually among the nations.

21. — That the apostate papal church does not obtain new revelation as the apostO' lical church always did, is' still fui-ther evident from her defining the canonical book, called scripture. This was first done at the Third Council of Carthage in the year S97. Previous to that time there had been a great variety of opinions as to what' books were inspired oft God. Mumford speaks thus on this subject : — " If you fiy to the tradition of the church only of the first four -hundred years, remember that the Council of Carthage just after the end of those years, alledged the ancient tradition of their fathers, wiiich they judged sufficent for defining our canon. They, who were so near those first four himdred yeai's, knew far better the more universal tradition of that age, than we can twelve hundred years after it. True it is, (nothing being defined till then) private doctors were free to follow what they judged to be truest : and as you find them varying from our canon, some in some books, some in others ; so you will find them varying from one another, and vaying also from you." (meaning the Protestant canon.) "For in those first four hundred years, Melitu* and Nazianzen excluded the book of Esther, which you add. Origen doubts of the f>istle to the Hebrews, of the second of St. Peter, of the first and second of St. John ; t. Cyprian and Nazianzen, leave the apocylipse or revelations out of their canon. Eusebius doubts of it." Elsewhere, he says, " all those holy fathers agreed ever in this, that such books were evidently God's word, which had evidently a sufficient tradition for them : Now in the days of those fathers who thus varied from one another, it was not by any infallible means made know to all, that those books about which their variance was, were recommended for God's infallible word, by a tradition clearly sufficient to ground belief; for the church had not as yet examined and defined, whether tradition did clearly enough show such and such books to he God's infallible word. But in the days of St. Austin, the Third Council of Carthage, Anno 397, examined how sufficient or insufficient the tradition of the churdi was, which recommended Ihose books for scripture, about which there was so much doubt.and contrariety of opinions. They found all the books contained in our canon, of which you account so many apocryphal, to" have been recommended by tradition, siifficient to ground •faith upon. For on this ground (Can. 47) they proceeded in defining all the. books in our canon to be canonical. Because, say they, we have received from our fathers that those books were to be read in the Church. Pope Innocent the First, who lived Anno 402, being requested by Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, to declare unto him which books were canonical, he answers, (Ep. 3,) that having examined what sufficient "tradition did demonstrate, he sets down, — What books are received in the canon of the JEoly Scriptures, in the end of his epistle, c. 7. To wit, just those which we no'vr have in our canon: and THOUGH HE REJECTS MANY OTHER BOOKS, yet he rejec{s not one of these."

22.— Here is the most incontrovertible evidence that this apostate church, who de-» fined the canon of scripture at the close of the fourth century, did not believe in afiy inspired books being given after the first century. For if she had believed that any man or officer in her communion had been inspired to -write the word of God, durm the second, tlurd, or fourth century, she would most assuredly have incorporated puctt inspired writings m the sacred canon ; but the very fact that no books were admitted Jbj the Coimdl of Carthage into the canon, which were written after the first century.

Question of Questions," Sec. six. par. 2. t Ibid, Sec. ifl. pars, i, 12.

diows most conclusively that they d not copsier, any later books to be inspired. Here, then, is demonstrative evidence, that the apostate Romish church, during tjie- '«ec(Jnd, third, atid fourth century, were destitute of, that great and infaUibie rule, ftaiady, STEW REVELATION which characterized the chiirch in the first peritiiify, mad in all previous ages whenever knd wherever Ood had a people living in rightiiS- Hess before him '

'23. — So destitute were the officers of this apostate church f the spirit of reveljK tion that they could not tall, only through tradition, which books were sacredi'nd which were not; aiid heilce there arose a great cofaterition among them on this svjb* ject, and a great variety of Opinions. At length the same contending parties 19 together in the capacity of a general council, and decide which' books shall be.!re- -«6ived into the canbn. , Recollect, dear reader, that this decision does not pretend to be founded upon new revelation but upon trciditipn, and tradition too tfiat was'so very impeirfect that it led one to rcgect one bo'ok,~and another, another ; producing a grea contrariety of opinibiis before the council met.' Who can, fqr one moment, suppose that a council, composed of a set of contending apostates so destitute of the.;!. ftt of truth and faith, that they could riot inquire of God and get a revelation WOB any subject, however important — who, I say, can suppose that they qould sit in judjgteent upon God's holy wOfdV and infallibly decide Ijy the aid, not of new revetetSoji, l>ut tradition alone, which books we the word of God and which were not ? ' Ih Ijiey- believed in new revelation, and inquireif of G«d which, was his word and wMch ■was not, there would haVebeen some Confidence to be placeld.in their decisions ;~bu ■js it is there is sdarcely any confidence whatever to be placed in them in, regard to this matter. Whete inspired officers, possessing power to'obtiunnew revelatibn, havis veased, there iiifallibility has ceased, and there uiicertEunty and doubt must ramap. Tell about the cbuiidls of the eliurch of Rome, being infallible, who ey:er heard of any iBOuUcil being infallible where there were no prophets and revelators that could", deirade' with a, thus Sdith the Lotd, and thus end all controversy ? 'The church of 0od never pretended to infallibility upbn any other grounds; yet this apostate " Motjier pf" Harlots" can, with 'on6 breath, call' herself infallible, and vth'the next breath deny D'ew revelatibnV • . r i , - - ,

' 24. — That the Romanists have continued in their apostacy until the present ay is dfitnbnstrated from the fact that theybave not added one single bopk to their canon fce fliey first formed'it. Now,' if there, had' been any prophet or apostle anxonK -them; ''durihg the last seventeen centuries, they" certaay Wpidd , have canonizedliis laiistles, Revelations,' and prophecies, as being equally sapred vritji those of the |iirst <Setitury. As thy havfe not done tlus, it shbsost clearly, that even, tihej,them- IVes, do not bqnsider that they hayie had apostles, prophets, and revelators amoiig 'thetn, during that long period of time.' ' They haye had, 'during the tiine, manjeteeral' eeUttfcils ■whidh'have confiriiied the drd'canon of scjripttire,rbut in ho su§ie- InstanCe hart they confirmed'any.bther books as the word Gbd, so that their carioh Stands now as when the'Cpuneilof Carthage left, it, without an addition of one fey?- ■Mtion. This confirms, beyond all controversy, the testimony of their most standarct' trorks, tc<Aa which We have before quoted, yvhrein it is repeatedly asserted, "thaFl|te- ** Written aiid UhwKtteri \void of God," revealed, prpvjous to auid in the first ce- toiryls'the onZy rule of faith, and.that the cimrcTi "JPretends to no nevo revelaMlt t only to declare clearly what she fitida to have before heeri revealed ;" an.cCiifio> 'tliat the decreed of her councils are'in relation to. vyhat Godsfiicl in the first centfj "Hfid that they by no pnens a.dj8it, jit He has s auyihing of a" latter date; ' aiicl wrafOTmably with these views, they have not admitted .anythipg into the sacred caiibn as Scripture, or the 'Word pf Gpd, that Jias ,b,een writt'rai .Siittng fhe. long,p"erioJ' of

Sevetttn hundred andfifty years. ' '

" 25;— 'IJpsrds of 250 Fopfes pretend to have successively filled jth? clajr of St»' Pete*, ml (these Popes, we are told,"liave possess the same aufti6rS;y and poww'as St.' Pete*;' wH6iii the diignSte'as the first Pope ; if this really be the cfise, then e ■iltf fliPopfes' mflt haVe been' inspired of God, arid the vrtidngs' of .faoE must xw- 'emkiaij M sSxSreA as fhe/iifags ' df Pope Si Peteir. "Why W' has the clc. •SB&vfed fiubh'igreat'parliaK#'1''''5Vhy has shei placed Pope'SL Peter's 'writings in £hesacred cfmon, anjj le| aJU ,tiii writings f the Ptjbier Pqpes put ?

26. — Bishop Milner after having quoted many passages of scripture, and used many arguments to prove the superiority of Peter's calling to that of the other apostles, says, " TKat bishops in general succeed to the rank and functions of the apostles ; so, by the same rule, the successor of St. Peter, in the See of Borne, succeeds to his primacy and jurisdiction."* If this be true, " that bishops in general succeed to the rank and functions of the apostles," then each bishop, as well as the Pope, must be a REVELATOR ; for apostles were Revelators, and one of the "functions" of their office was to receive revelations ; therefoj-e, all the Roman Catholic -bishops, if they succeed to the. same rank, and exercise the same " functions" as apostles, — must be revelators. According to this, since the first century, the Catholics must have had many tens of thousands of revelators, and yet, strange' to say, none of their revelations are permitted to enter the sacred canon among other scriptures given in thel> first century. Here, indeed, is a strange inconsistency ! Even the Catholic church herself, evidently places no confidence in the popes and bishops, the pretended successors of St. Peter and the rest of the apostles ; if she did, she would have canonized their revelations along with the rest of the revelations of the New Testament. What must we conclude then, as to her bishops holding " the rank and functions of apostles 9" We can but conclude that it is all an imposition — a wicked soutdestrpying imposition, practised upon the nations by a corrupt apostate church whose officers have no more " the rank and functions of apostles " than the apostate chief priests among the Jews have. Indeed, so long as " they pretend to no new revelations," Jthey cannot exercise the " functions of apostles."

27. — It is in vain for the Romish church to pretend that the Word of God, spoken to the apostles, is a sufficient guide for all future ages. It is contrary to the dealings of God in all previous dispensations. He never left his faithful people in one age dependant alone on the word spoken in a previous age. The Catholics in appealing to tradition and ancient scripture as their only rule of faith, have endeavoured to justify themselves, by falsely telling the people that mankind were dependant on tradition as a rule of faith from Adam to Moses — a period of about twenty-four hundred years. One of their writers speaks thus : " The whole church through the whole world was governed by tradition onlt, for the first two thousand years''" This is evidently false ; for the whole church governed herself from Adam to Moses, by both tradition and new revelation. Each age, during that period, furnished the church with revelators who delivered the word of the Lord to her, and she was governed by that word, and also by the traditions of former ages as far as they were applicable.

28. — The church was not only governed from Adam to Moses by new revelation, but from Moses to the close of the first century of the Christian era. The Word of God given in past ages, whether written or unvtritten, was never considered by the true church a sufficient rule of faith in any dispensation since the creation of man. Such an idea was never originated in the church of God. It was the apostate Ca tholics that first originated the idea, and by them the fatal delusion has been handed dovm from generation to generation ; and all the children that she has brought forth, or that have left her communion, have, more or less, imbibed the same great features cf the apostacy. Well might the revelator John, speaking by the spirit of prophecy, call her « THE MOTHER OP HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH !" It is her true name, for all the " HARLOTS " which she has brough* forth have walked in the footsteps of their " Mother" in declaring against new revelation, and in pretending that ancient revelation was a sufficient rule of faith. It is to be expeetsd that as is the Mother, so will be her Harlot Daughters. The daughters in some respects are more corrupt than the mother ; for they have limited their rule of faith mtjch more than the mother. Pope Innocent the First, (as wa have already quoted), in the year 402, s»t in judyeht upon the books of scripture, d rejected many of them, from a compilation in the canon. Some eleven or twelve ppnturies after this, one of the Harlot Daughters believed that her Mother had retained too much scripture in her canon ; therefore, she concluded to make a new canon of ter own, which she actually did do, leaving out some half a score of books which were in her Mother's canon. This newly-formed canon of scripture is palmed upon

* " End of Cootroversj," Letter xlvi. p. 439. f " Question of. Questions," Sec. six. par. 8.

the British nation and the United States as a sufficient rule of faith. It must he recollected that neither Mother nor Daughter was guided hy new revelation in foriniag these two different canons of scripture. As the Mother decided on the Word of God by tradition, so did the Daughter ; and as tradition taught the Mother to reject many books and receive others, so tradition taught the Daughter to reject all that her Mother rejected, and some half-a-score besides. After awhile this Harlot Daughter brings forth a numerous progeny of children, each of whom alters her creed, so as to disagree with both Mother and Grandmother's creeds ; yet the church of England with all her Daughters agree in the rejection of the old canon of scripture, and in the reception of the newly-formed one.

29. — In the meantime, another Harlot Daughter of the Catholics — the Lutherans, formed another canon, and rejected many books that the English Daughter did not. She cast out the epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews, the epistle of St. James, the second epistle of St. Peter, the second and third of St. John, the epistle of St. Jude, and the Apocalypse or Revelation. Here are seven books i-eceived into the English Bible, not received into the Lutherans' Bible. Thus we perceive three different canons of scripture, proposed for the faith of mankind. If the Bible alone is a sufficient guide, which of these three Bibles shall we take ? Shall we take the Catholic, — the Lutheran, — or the English Bible ? The Catholic Bible contains many things that the English and Lutheran do not, and the English contains many things that the Lutheran does not. Which shall we believe ? If it be answered that we are to take all that God ever has revealed and caused to be written, as our rule of faith ; then it will require a revelator to bring to light some twenty sacred books that are known once to have existed, but are not now to be found in either of the three bibles mentioned above. Therefore if we are to take all of God's written word as our rule of faith, it will require another sacred canon to be made out, including all the lost books. This cannot be done by a Roman Catholic nor Protestant council, for tradition will not supply lost books. It is certain that if all the v/ritten word of God is necessary to a perfect rule of faith, that neither Catholics nor Protestants can have a perfect rule, for they have only a part of the written word of God. If it be said that a part is sufficient as a rule of faith, then a question at once arises : how large a part will suffice? One sect will answer, that part contained in the Lutheran Bible is sufficient ; other sects will say no ; the Lutheran Bible does not contain sufficient, but the English Bible contains enough : no, answers another class, the English Bible does not contain enough, but the Catholic Bible contains just enough : and where shall we stop ? Who has light enough to determine whether the Catholic Bible, which contains far more than the other two, has one-tenth part of what is necessary for a perfect rule of faith ? If part of God's word forms a perfect rule of faith, I will venture to say, that there is not a man living who is able to say what part of his word should be rejected, and what part retained, in order to form this perfect rule.

30 — In those sacred books written by prophets, seers, and apostles which have not descended to our day, but which we know once existed, as their names are refered to in scripture — there may be many great and important doctrines and ordinances revealed that are not contained in our scriptures. Indeed, no one, without further revelation, knows whether even one-hundredth part of the doctrines and ordinances of salvation are contained in the few books of scripture which have descended to our times, how then, can it be decided that they are a sufficient guide ? May there not be some great and important things contained " in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah, and in the visions of Iddo the seer, and in the book of Gad tU seer?'"'

31. — May there not be important doctrines contained in some of Paul's epistles which we have not got ? In the last epistle which Paul wrote from Rome to the Co- Icssians, he commands them, " likewise to read the epistle from Laodicea."'f In that which is commpnly called his first epistle to the Corinthians, he says, (chap. v. 9.) " / wrote unto you in an epistle.". Where are these two epistles which Paul himself refers to ? They are gone. There may be in these lost epistles doctrines of infinite importance which we know nothing about. That the Corinthians had been

* 2 Chron. U. 29.— 1 Chron, xxix. 29. f Colos. iv. 16.

instructed in a, doctrine which the whole of Christendom are now ignorant of, is evident from a particular question which he asks them, which reads as follows : « Else what ihall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all f Why are they then baptized for the dead f"* This doctrine of baptism for the dead must have been well understood by them, or Paul never would have asked this ■question without further explanations upon the subject. Now when, and in what manner was this doctrine communicated to them ? It may have been fully developed to them in the epistle which he says that he had previously viritten to them. This doctrine may have been as important as baptism to the living. Does the written oc unwritten word of God with which Christendom are acquainted, inform them any thing about how this ceremony is to be performed ? Does it inform them who is to officiate? Who is to be the candidate in behalf of the dead? What classes of the dead are to be benefitted by it ? Does scripture or tradition inform us in what particular baptism for the dead wiU affect them ii the resurrection ? Does it inform us whether baptism for the dead can be administered in all places, or only in a baptismal font, in a temple conseci-ated for that pm'pose ? All these important questions remain unanswered by scripture and tradition. Even the Catholics themselves, who boast of scripture and tradition as their infallible rule of faith, cannot, and do not, pretend to decide these questions of doctrine.

32. — The Rev. Dr. Milner, in speaking of the Catholic church, says, " iS7ie does not dictate an exposition of the whole Bible, because she has no tradition concern ing a very great proportion of it, as for example, concerning the prophecy of Enoch, quoted by Jude 14 ; and the BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD of which Sf. Paul makes meniio«."t If " a very great proportion" of the Bible cannot be explained for the want of sufficient tradition, then that "very great proportion" of the Bible cannot be of any use ; and that very small proportion of the Bible, which tradition does explain, must be a very imperfect rule of faith. For aught the Catholics know there may be hundreds of millions of the dead that will not attain to a first resurrection, because tradition does not explain to them the necessity of being baptized for them. Tradition, and the small proportion of scripture that it explains, are therefore not a sufficient guide. If the Catholics had all the lost books of scripture, and a perfect tradition of all the unwritten word of God that has been spoken since the world began, then they would have a little more pretext for holding forth scripture and tradition as an infallible guide, but until then, they have no authority to preach up a part of the books of scripture, united with so little tradition, as an infallible rule of faith.

33. — We are told by the Catholics " that many, and very many of the canonical boohs of scripture have quite peHshed, and not so much as appeared in the days of the very ancient fathers ; so that nothing but the names of those books are come unto us."X It is also acknowledged by the Catholics that a very great proportion of the few books which are left cannot be explained : it is further acknowledged that Jhe tradition of the unwritten word is so limited, that it does not give them an understanding of many points of doctrine : it is still further acknowledged that their church " pretends to no new revelations," but only to interpret, as far as the few feeble glimmerings of tradition, connected with the very little scripture which they profess to understand, will enable them to do,: — and yet they tell us, after all these acknowledgments that their very little scripture, and their very little tradition, is an INFALLIBLE RULE OP FAITH. Oh, blush for the inconsistencies of " the Mother of Harlots !" Her claims to infallibility are blasphemy ! Oh, how could the kings of the earth and all nations have been so horribly imposed upon ! But they will yet take vengeanoa upon her, " and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and bum her vidth fire," for thus hath the Almighty spoken.

34. — We shall now proceed to point out a thing of infinite importance, which is necessary to the very existence of the church of God on the earth> and yet it never could be learned by either the Bible -or tradition. It is this : in order that the true church may continue its existence on the earth, it is necessary that there' should

♦ 1 Corin. xv. 29. t " End of Controversy," Letter xii. p. 169.

X " Question of Questions," sec. i. 7.

J?e kept up a regular and constant succession of the orders of the priesthood : this isadmitted by the Cathoiios ; and they refer to upwards of two hundred and fifty popes who have succeeded St. Peter, and to many tens of thousands of bishops who have succeeded the rest of the apostles. Now if this succession can really be proved, then the Catholics must be the only true and living church on the vifliole earth, and all the Protestant churches are excommunicated apostates ; on the other hand, if such syccession does not exist, then both the Catholics and Protestants are apostates from the apostolic church of Christ, built up in the first century. We take the ground that mere has been no regular succession of the orders of the priesthood through the Catliolic church.

35. — The first proof which we adduce against any such regular succession is thp Catholic rule of faith, namely, ancient scripture and tradition. What word of God, spoken by the apostles, either written or unwritten, has pointed out either of the popes, who has pretended to succeed St. Peter, during the last sixteen centuries ? We defjf the whole Catholic church to bring forward one word of ancient scripture, or ancient tradition, to prove that the popes of the third century, namely, Zephyrinus, Calixtus I., Urban I., Pontanius, Antherus, Fabian, &c., &c., were the very persons whoshould succeed St. Peter ; if then, neither scripture nor tradition designated the persons who should hold that responsible oflSce, how were the Catholics of the third century to know that either of the above-named persons were the right ones ? Per'haps, the Catholics may answer that, though there was no scripture or tradition, that pointed -them qut, yet the church, being infallible, were able to know the right men. We reply, that the Catholic church cannot be infallible, because she "pretends to no new revelations" and as we have already seen, she ONLY pretends to be guided in all her decisions and decrees by ancient scripture and tradition, and she has no scripture nor apostolic tradition to tell her who, among all the millions of the third century, are called to St. Peter's chair ; therefore St. Peter's chair must remain vacated until this important question is settled. And as the Catholics, according to their own admissions, have had no new revelations for the long period of seventeen centviries, therefore St. Peter's chair must have remained vacated during that long period of time. The same reasoning will apply equally to every one of the orders of priesthood, from St. Peter's chair down to the office of teacher or deacon. Scripture and traction call no man by name who have lived dming the last sixteen centuries ; therefore the succession could not possibly continue, as there could be no possible way of finding out who were called and who were not, unless they obtained new revelation,tend this would contradict what we have abundantly proved to be their rule of faith ; thefafore it is proved by the most incontrovertible evidence that the succession of the priesthood could not legally and lawfully be transferred where there is no new revelation.

36. — The second proof, against the catholic succession, is that through ancient .scripture and tradition alone, it would be impossible for the pretended successors of St. Peter and the rest of the apostles to exercise the functions of their ofiice. One (rf the chief duties of the apostles was to receive commandments and new revelaipns for the instruetipn of themselves and all the church of God placed under their charge ; and one of the chief duties of a prophet in the Christian church was to foretell future events through new revelation, and forewarn individuals as well as the church of any anproaghing danger. That these prophets prophesied by new revelation is clear from ,the following plain passages of scripture, written to the Cprinthians. "How is it ,then, brethren, when ye come together every one of you, hath a psalm, hath a door ixme, hath a tongue, hath a REVELATION, hath an interpretation ? " (chp. .xiv. %6,) Again, St. Paul says to them, "Let the PROPHETS speak two pr thre% and let the other judge. If anything he REVEALED to another thatsitfesth hy» let the first hold his peace. For ye, may all PROPHESY one by one, that all nvaj learn, and all may be comforted. And the spirit of the pnopMts are subject to the prophets,. For Gqd is not the author of eonfusjon .but of pece, »s in ?ijl churches erf the Saints." (Verses 29 — 33.) Agabus the prophet prophesied; of » farriine, .and te church,, being forewarned, made every preparation to meet it, by seeding contidT butions to the poor ssunts in other places, and thus, doubtless, much suffering and misery were prevented. We can here plaiijy .perceive the principal duties of the two first offices in the Christiiip church. Now if, the catholic? have a succession of these

offices, thw must exercase the functions of them, otherwise the offices -would he of nobenefit. Bui they cannot exercise the functions and perform the chief duties of these offices, unless they obtain an abtmdnce of new revelation and pi:<n>hecies, and this they could not do without violating their only rule of faith, which binds them to ancient scripture and ancient tradition asjtheir only gde. Moreover the Catholics themselvesvirtually acknowledge that none of their pretended successors of the apostolical and prophetical offices, nave received any revelations and prophecies from the fact that they have not admitted any of them into the sacred canon of sci;ipture. Thus we see that ancient scripture and tradition, interpreted by the Catholic church, which they acknowledge to be their only rule of faith, can never qualify their pretended successors to act in the apostolical and prophetical offices. And hence, those offices have not been, and could not be perpetuated in the Catholic church. And, therefore, the Catholic Churgh cannot possibly be the church of Christ.

37. — But if the Catholic church cannot be the qhurch of Christ for the want of a legal succession of the apostolical and prophetical orders of the priesthood ; her <3aughtcrs the Protestants cannot be the church of Christ for the same reason, unless ttbd has restored the priesthood to them by a new revelation and an avithpritative or- ijtion. But thecProtestant 'ihters, as well as the Catholic mother, make no jpteitension to new revelation as is demonstrated from the fact of their admitting no piore into the sacred canon of scripture. Therefore, neither the Protestant nor Catholic churches, can possibly be the church of Christ.

38. — The same reasons that demonstrate the Catholic and Protestant churches not to he the church of Christ, will also demonstrate that the Greek church is not the farch of Christ ; therefore the Qhur(;h of Christ has not existed on the eastern hemilphere during the last, seventeen centuries. We shall now proceed to answer some pmections.

30. — First, it is objected, that the promise of the Saviour, recorded in Matthew xxyiii. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, could not be fulfilled unless the church should continue l existence on the earth. These passages read thus : — " Then the eleven disciples .went away into Qalilee, iqto a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And jHfHen they sawhim, they worshipped him ; but some doubted. And Jesus came and pake into them, saying, AJl power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Gp y;e 1;herefore, and teach nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and Ctf the. Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to .observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you : and, lb, / am with you alway, even unto tJla find of the morld." It is argued by the Catholics, " that the Apostles themselves were only to live the ordinary term of man's life; therefore, e commission of |B;e»<fling »nd ministering, together, with the promise of the divine assistance, regards |he successors of the apostles, no less than ,the apostles themselves. This proves that tliere niust have been an uninteri;viptedsei;ies of such successors of the apostles, in every e . since their, time ; that is to say, succestsors to their doctrine, to their jurisdiction, tp then: orders, and to their inission. Honce it follows, that no religious society .ifteyer, which- ca,nnot trace its succession in these four .points, up to the apotjes, has any claim to the characteristical title, APOSTOLICAL." This argument I have given in the words of one cjf their learned bishops, the Bight Reverend Doojtpp, JJiiier.* Now if it were adnjitted, tljat this catv-vnisSiion and promise of our Savjour were intejided for .the successors of the apostles, (which we by no means .aidiiit,) it would till be out of the power of the Catholic priests to claim the com- Jsissipn 4nd promise until ey could prove from scripture and tradition .that each one

J f .them were the actual persons who -ere to be the true successors : and this, weave Bjlready stiown tJiey cannot ,do. Therefore, they haye no more claim to the pmnipigisipn and promise than the Pagan priests hy,e. But we do not admit that the mpinise— «L0, I AM WITH YOU MWAY, EVEN UNTO THE END OF T WORLD," had .aijy referenpe to ?iny persons -whatever only the ELEVEJi miples mentioned in the teenth verse, -pho!hadj by a prp-yious. engagement, retired, to ?. .fountain in Galilee : th were the only persoiw whom he.addressed and to -yirhom lee this eat ppmi. But, says Dpctor JUii't " Ihey were only tq. Uve the

* "End of ControyeifBy," Letter xxviii. p, 381.

ordinart/ term of man's life." and consequently, he draws the conclusion that the promise could not be fulfilled to them without successors. According to this curious inference of the learned bishop, the Lord must have forsaken the eleven disciples as soon as they died; for if he adlnit that JeSus continued with them after the period of the death of their mortal bodies, and that he will eonMnue with them even unto tlw «id of the world, then what need would there be of successors in order that the promise might be fulfilled ? Prove that Jesus has not been with the eleven apostles from the time of their death until the present time, and that he will not be with them " even unto the end of the world," and after you have proved this, you will prove that ffesus has falsified his word ; for to be with the successors of the apostles is not to be with them. But whether the apostles have successors or not, Jesus will always ba with them, and will bring them with him when he shall appear in his glory, and they shall sit upon thrones and judge the house of Israel, during the great millennium, while Jesus will not only be with them, but will reign with them even unto the end of the world. Therefore, there is nothing in this promise of Jesus that gives the most distant intimation that an apostolical succession or chvu:ch of Christ should continue on the earth.

40. — Secondly, it is objected that if the church of Christ has not continued, then the gates of hell must have prevailed against her ; and they refer us to that cheering passage in Matthew, (xvi. 18,) which reads thus : — " And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter ; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shaJl notlprevail against it." They argue, that if the church has ceased to exist, the gates of hell have prevailed over her, and the promise of Jesus must be falsified. ' But we would inform the Catholics, that the church of Christ has not ceased to exist, neither has Peter ceased his existence, but both the church and Peter are in heaven, far out of the reach of the gates of hell, and far. out of the reach of the abominable soul-destroying impositions of Popery. The gates of hell have prevailed and will continue to prevail over the Catholic Mother of Harlots, and over all her Protestant Daughters; but as for the apostolical church of Christ, she rests seciu-e in the mansions of etei:nal happiness, where she will remain until the apostate Catholic church, with all her

Eopes and bishops, together with all her Harlot Daughters shall be hurled down to eU : then it shall be said, " Rejoice over her thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets ; for God hath avenged you on her ;" and then shall be " heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying. Alleluia : salvation, and glory, and honor, and power, unto the Lord, our God: for true and righteous are his judgments: for ha hath judged the great whor?, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand." And again they shall say, " Alleluia, and her smoke shall rise up for ever and ever. And thus when the Catholics and Protestants hear all the heavens, and all the holy apostles and prophets, rejoicing over the downfall of Babylon, they will learn that the church of Christ still exists in heaven, and that the gates of hell have not prevailed against her; then they will learn where the apostolical and prophetical power rests ; then they will perceive the difference between the glory of the church of Christ and the misery and wretchedness of their o;wn fiery torments.

41.— Many Protestants say they take the Bible as their only rule of faith ; if the Bible is to be taken as our only guide, it is of infinite importance that the divine authenticity of the Bible be infallibly established. How do the Protestants prove the truth of the Bible ? What evidence have they that the book of Matthew was inspired of God, or any other of the books of the New Testament? The only evidence they hye is tradition. They have received into their canon such books only as tradition accifbflits to be genuine ; while those books which have not a sufficiency of traditiorf It) establish then- divine inspiration,' are rejected from the canon. Here then we clear% perceive that the first foundation stone of the Protestant rule of faith is traditioiK Tradition alone tells them that the books of the New Testament are true, and as soon as they have learned this on the testimony of tradition, they take them as a sufficient guide ; hence their only rule of faith is founded on tradition : but we have already shown that tradition is a very imperfect guide. Tradition taught the Lutherans to reject seven books of the New Testament, which tradition taught the English to deceive: and tradition'taught the English to reject some half a score of books from

their Bible, which tradition taught the Catholics in the third council of Carthage to, receive ; and tradition taught the council of Carthage to reject many books which! tradition taught several of their learned bishops and others, in the second, third, and. fourth century to receive. If tradition then be so very uncertain, may it not have, deceived the CathoUcs and Protestants as to the genuineness of many of the books which they retain in their canons. And may not this very imperfect tradition have taught them to reject many books which are equally sacred with those which they have retained. Tradition cannot give an absolute certainty as to the truth of any of, those books. Great numbers of books, during the early ages, were circulated and accredited, which are now said to be apochryphal. But how, we enquire, are uninspii'ed men, by the use of tradition alone, to select a genuine book from the midst of a numerous collection of spurious gospels and epistltes, and prophecies, which were published under the names of the apostles, and under the names of other holy men cotemporary with them ? It would be like the chance of drawing a prize in a lottery where there were a hundred blanks to one prize. Absolute certainty is necessary as to what is true, and what is false, as to what is the word of God and what is not ; for without it we may build our faith upon forged scripture, and reject true scripture, and be led into all lands of eiToiu, As tradition cannot give us absolute certainty, how shall this very desirable and infciitely important knowledge be obtained? We answer, that by new, revelation the genuineness of all books can be tested; and without it, imcertainty and doubt must always hang over many of them.

42. — Even though tradition could demonstrate with the greatest certainty that any or all of the books that are even received by the Catholics, were, in their original written by the persons who are represented to be their authors, yet how can it be„etermined that even the originals were written by divine inspiration ? Several learned Protestants, such as Hooker, ChUlingworth, &c., allow that scripture cannot bear testimony to the truth of its own inspiration. How are the Protestants then to know, without new revelation, that any one book of the Bible was divinely inspired ? How do they know but that it was merely written according to the best judgment of the author ? The Bible cannot inform them until the inspiration of the Bible be established. If it be admitted that the apostles and evangeusts did write the books of the New Testament, that does not prove of itself that they were divinely inspired at the time thy wrote. They were men subject to like passions with other men, and liable to err only when under the direct inspiration of the Spirit. How can it be Imown without new revelation, that these writers did not sometimes write their own words and opinions instead of the word of the Lord as given by the Holy Ghost ? Some things which Paul wrote, he acknowle'dges that he had no commandment of the Lord for ithus writing, but gave his own judgment and his own suppositions. (See 1 Corinth, vii. 6, 25, 26,) As Paul and other writers of the New Testament have not told ua which part they wrote by inspiration, and which part they wrote according to their, own opinions and judgment, how can we make the selection of the inspired parts from the uninspired parts of each book ? We answer, that tradition will never decide this important question ; and therefore neither Catholics nor Protestants can know of a certainty Which parts of each of the original books are actually the ideas and word* given by inspiration. Neither can they know but that some whole books which they receive as scripture were vreitten by human wisdom alone. Though scripture were allowed to bear testimony of its own inspiration, even then, there are many books in thei sacred canon which do not bear any such testimony, and therefore the only proof . which Protestants can have of their inspiration is founded solely on tradition.

43. — If it oould.still further be demonstrated by tradition, that every part of each, boot of the Old and New Testaments, was, in its original, actually written by inspiration, still it cannot be determined that there is one single true copy of those originals,; now in existence. The whole Catholic and Protestant world cannot produce the original writings of one single book of either the Old or New Testament. The origi- , nals ai'e no where to be found among Christians, Pagans, Jews, or Mohometans. The original writings of Moses and the ancient prophets, it is beUeved by the learned, were all destroyed by the Assyrians nearly six hundred years before Christ.* W«

* Brett's pessertation in Bishop Watson's Collect., vol. Ui. p. 3,

Are informed in the Apocrypha, that the prophet Bsdras or Ezra was inspired to re- -write all those ancient books over again ; and in this manner the Jews, at the close o£' -their Babylonish captivity, once more obtained them. These books again perished in tide greait persecution of Antiochus.* How the Jews were suppUed with copies after that no one knows. Now the Protestants do not know that Esdras was a true prophet ! Indeed, they doubt of his being a true prophet by placing his books in the Apocrypha, therefore they could not rely with confidence on any book which he should pretend to replace by inspiration.

44. — The copies which we now have of the boolis of Moses and other ancient prophets may be very much corrupted ; we are certain that they have been added unto in a degree by some person or persons who lived many centuries after Moses; this is evident from the books themselves : for example, the thirty-first verse of the thirty-sixth chapter of Genesis was certainly added by some one who lived after the chiten of Israel had kings. It reads thus : " And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel." Here is positive proof that the transcriber of vae book of Genesis lived after the children of Israel had kings, and added these his ovm wordfe to this first book of Moses. Some Other person after the days of Moses added the whole of the last chapter of the book of Deuteronomy. Several other passages in the books of Moses have been added or changed since bis death. Learned commentators t have agreed that similar changes or additions have been made to several other books of the Old Testament by unknown persons. Who can tell at the present day who were the persons who wrote the books of J >«hua, Ruth, Judges, Esther, the book of Kings, and the books of Chronicles? W c*e they written by inspired men ? if so, what were their names, and what proofs has Christendom that they were inspired ?

45. — These uncertain and altered copies of some of the books of the Old Testament were translated from the Hebrew into Greek some two or three centuries before Christ; this was called the Septnagint. But even the original copies of this translation are no where to be found. Such copies as the English translation was taken from, were found in many places to be very much corrupted, disagreeing among- Ihemselves, insomuch that the English translators were obliged sometimes to translate from the Hebrew which is acknowledged alia) to be very much corrupted. The Hebrew copies are supposed by the learned to have been altered by the wicked Jews theimselves, after they rejected Christ, in order to do away the force of many predictions relating to Him. St. Chrysostoin (Homil. 9) writes tiiius: "Many of the prophetical monuments have perished ; for the Jews being careless, and not only ear&. less, but also impious, they have carelessly lost some of these monuments ; others they have partly burned, partly torn in pieces." St. Justin, in writing against Tryphon, shoes most clearly that the Jews did destroy many books of the Old Testament " that' the New might not seem to agree with it as it should." What confidence, then, am Catholics or Protestants have in these half-destroyed, corrupted, mutilated Hebrew ' liianuscripts ? The oldest copies of the Old Testament, whether Hebrew or Greek, ' vrhich the English translators could procure, disagree with each other in many — Very' many places ; so much so, that it was impossible for them to decide which was oorrect. Indeed so much corruption in the old manuscript copies was calculated to tiirow a mist of darkness and uncertainty over the whole of them. One of the ataoient writers, Jerome, in his commentiiries upon the prophets, complains of the corruption of his manuscript Greek copies. Bellarmine testifies that the Greek copies ' of the Old Testament are so corrupted, that they seem to make a new translation, qliite' different from the translations of other copies. All, therefore, is uncer'tainty-as tbihe Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament; they can be proVed to be changed, added unto, and corrupted in almost every text.

46.— It is abundantly proved by various learned writers, that the Greek copies of the New Testainent are awfully corrupted in almost every text. Mr. Cressy write* ' in these words, « In my hearing, Bishop Usher professed, that whereas he had of many years before a desire to pubUsh the New Testament in Gi-eek, with various Idctions and annotations : and for that purpose had used great diligence, and speiiti '

* Brett's Dessertation fn Bishop Watson's Colliect., voliui.p, 6, J Bontrerins, TornieUlUi

much money to furnish himself with manuscripts : yet, in conclusion, he as forced to ■desist utterly, lest, if he should ingeniously have noted all the several "differences of reading which himself had collected, the incredible multitude of them almost in every verse, should rather have made men atheistical, than satisfy them in the true reading of anj particular passage."* Let those who take the Bible for theur only guide think ■of this. If the few manuscripts procured by Bishop Usher, contams in ahnost every verse " an incredible multitude of different readings," what groimds have Protes- ■tants for confidence in one of these ireadings more than in another ? Out of a thousand different manuscripts, differing in almost every text, who can select the true one ? Indeed, there would be almost an infinite improbability as to any one copy being true. Now, it was from such a mass of contradictory Greek manuscripts that the English New Testament was translated.

47. — But to say nothing of the incredible multitude of different readings in the Greek manuscripts themselves, the translators from these old mannscripts are liable to commit many errors, as is evident from the vast number of very different translations which have been made. There is no two translations that agree. This then is another prolific source of error which is calculated to throw still greater uncertainty over- the present copie?of the scriptures.

48. — What shall we say then, concerning the Bible's being a sufficient guide ? Can we rely upon it in its present known coiTupted state, as bemg a faithful record of God's word ? We all know that but a few of the inspired writings have descended to our times, which few quote the names of some twenty other books which are lost, and it is quite certain that there were many other inspired books that even the names have not reached us.t What few have come down to our day, have been mutilated, changed, and corrupted, in such a shameful manner that no two manuscripts agree. Verses and even whole chapters have been added by unknown persons ; and even we •do not know the authors of some whole books ; and we are not certain that all those which we do know, were wrote by inspiration. Add all this imperfection to the un- <!e(rtainty of the translation, and who, in his right mind, could, for one moment, suppose the Bible in its present form to be a perfect guide ? Who knows that even one •verse of the whole Bible has escaped pollution, so as to convey the same sense now that it did in the original ? Who knows how many important doctrines and ordinances necessary to salvation may be buried in oblivion in some of the lost books ? Who knows that even the ordinances and doctrine that seem to be set forth in the present English Bible, are anything like the original ? The Catholics and Protestants do not know, because tradition is too imperfect to give this knowledge. There can be no certainty as to the contents of the inspired writings until God shall inspire some one to re-write all those books over again, as he did Esdras in ancient times. There is no possible means of arriving at certainty in any other way. No reflecting man can dehy the necessity of such a new revelation.

49. — We now apjpeal to the honesty, good sense, and learning of all good moral men, to testify their convictions in regard to the insufficiency of their rules of faith. Is there a man among you who has candidly examined the present confused, divided, distracted state of all Christendom, who is not thoroughly convinced that something is radically -wrong ? Many of you, no doubt, have, in your serious reflecting moments, looked upon the bewildered, blind, cold, formal, powerless systems of rdigon with which you were surrounded with feelings of sorrow and disgust. You have -wished to know the truth, but alas, wherever you have turned your investigations, darkness and uncertainty have stared you in the face. The voices of several hundred jarring, contending, soul-sickening sects, were constantly sounng in your ears ; each one pro- • fessing to be built upon the Bible, and yet each one differing from all the rest. Under ' this confused state of thitigs, you have peradvehture, involuntarily exclaimed ; can the Bible be the word of God ! Would God reveal a system of religion expressed in such indefinite terms that a thousand different religions should grow out of it ? Has God revealed the great system of salvation insuch vague uncertain language on purpose to delight himself -with the quai-rels and contentions of Iiis creatures in lelatioB

* Exomol. tia. «. Nu. 3. { Esdtas 'speaks of a great' number of bbdks which we have not got.

to it ? "Would God think so much of fallen men, that ite would give his only begotten Son to die for them, and then reveal his doctrine to them in language altogether ambiguous and uncertain ? Such questions, doubtlessi have passed through the mind of many a religiously-inclined person. Millions have been sensible of the midnight darkness, but have not knovn the true cause ; they have acknowledged that ihey could not understand a very great proportion of the Bible, yet they have believed it to be the word of God ; they have wondered that the Bible should be their only rule of faith, and yet so few be able to understand it alike. Many seeing the contradictions, the vagueness, and the uncertainty of all modern religions, professing to have emenated from the same God, have been so disgusted that they have renounced the Bible aB a fable invented by priestcraft ; others, fearing to do this, have pored over whole libraries of uninspired commentaries, seeking after the true meaning of that which they believe God has revealed ; and at last, finding the learned commentators as widely disagreed as the sects themselves, they have concluded that the Bible is a great mystery and that God did not intend to have it understood when he revealed it. Others, still, having a little more perseverance, and believing that God would not send a revelation which he did not wish the people to understand, have with great diligence collected vast numbers of the most ancient Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the sacred books, but here they find themselves utterly confounded : these ancient manuscripts, which they had hopes would reveal the truth, are perverted and corrupted in almost every text, so that they find " an incredible number of different readings " oa every page and almost every sentence. From this heterogeneous mass of contradictory manuscripts they give an English translation, and call it the Bible ; thus leaving millions to guess out the true meaning and quarrel, and contend with each other because they do not guess alike.

60. — The true cause of all the divisions which distract modern Christendom is the want of inspired apostles and prophets : they, through wickedness and apostacy, lost the key of revelation some seventeen centuries ago, since which time they have been altogether unable to open the door of knowledge. Satan has taken the advantage of their dark and benighted condition, and robbed the world of a great number of sacred books, corrupting those few that remained to such a degree, that he has got the whole of Christendom quaiTelling about their true meaning. This pleases him : he cares not how much they contend and fight about religion as long as he knows that their religion is false : neither does he care how much they are united about reUgion, as long as he knows that it is not of the right kind. He can tolerate, and, indeed, help his reverend ministers to promulgate all kinds of religion, except that which has true revelators and prophets in it : no other kind of religion displeases him. But for a prophet or revelator to establish a religion on the earth, is more than he can quietly put up with ; it strikes a death blow to all that he has been doing since the great apostaicy. He is exceedingly frightened, lest some of the old lost books of the ancient prophets and apostles should be again revealed. He is also raving mad, lest the books of the Old and New Testaments should be revealed again anew in their pvirity as at first — lest every point of Christ's doctrine should be again revealed in such plain, definite, and positive language, that no two persons could possibly disagree upon it. This would be exceedingly dangerous to his kingdom; no wonder then, that he should be full of wrath ! But the sincere, honest, humble seeker after truth, must have the privilege of finding it, and that too, in the greatest of plainness, before the overthrow of all nations, that they, by embracing it, may escape the judgments of great Babylon. Yes ! the day is come and the time is at hand when all nations are to hear the word of the Lord by the mouth of his chosen apostles and prophets to whom he hath restored the key of revelation for the last time, and for the dispensation of the fulness of times, that all things may be prepared and sealed unto the end of all things, against the day of rest for the meek of the earth.

15, Wilton Street, Liverpool, December Isi, ISfiO.

B, JAUES, rBINIEB, 39, SOVIB 0A3TLB SIBEET, LITEBFOOI