"Ah! lady, thou hast never known a mother's pride and bliss,- If we lost her, or fill'd her place with heaps of countless gold. "Thou sittest 'mong the nobles in thine high and honour'd place- C. A. M. W. POPULAR FALLACIES.-(No. I.) THE BIBLE AND THE BIBLE ONLY. THE recent excitement by which the country has been convulsed, has, we fear, tended in a measure and degree to the obliteration of certain essential principles, and to the propagation of erroneous and false theories. Into all of these we cannot enter; but some of them may be passed in review, in order that the truth may not be entirely sacrificed. And this we can do without deviating from the rules by which we have hitherto been governed in the conduct of our little Magazine. The first, because the most important, shall consist of a few remarks upon the oft-repeated sentence-"the Bible and the Bible only" in order that we may see what is the view of our branch of the Church Catholic upon this subject. It is said that by appealing to antiquity we overthrow the supremacy of Holy Scripture, and place the traditions of men above the word of GOD, and substitute the Church for the Bible. This, certainly, is a grave charge. Let us, therefore, calmly examine it. Now the sixth Article of our Church expressly declares, “that Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." Here, then, it is indisputably asserted that the Holy Scriptures are the only perfect rule of Faith, that they contain the will of God, and that nothing must be imposed upon men, which cannot be substantiated by the most certain warranty of Holy Writ. This declaration we most thankfully and heartily receive, not only with the English Church, but with the Primitive also. With Tertullian we say, "I adore the perfection of ScripLet the school of Hermogenes show that it is written. If it is not written, let him fear the curse pro ture. nounced upon those who add to or take away from it." With S. Irenæus, "We know that the Scriptures are perfect, being spoken by the Word of GOD, and His Spirit." With S. Athanasius, we assert that they are "the fountains of salvation; that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the oracles contained in them. In these alone the doctrine of salvation is set forth. Let no man add thereto, or take therefrom." With S. Jerome, "As we deny not what is written, so we reject what is not written." With S. Augustine, "In Holy Scripture are plainly set down all things which contain faith, and the duties of life." With S. Cyril, we believe "that the most casual remark should be substantiated by Scripture." And with S. Basil, that "It is a manifest defection from the Faith, and a proof of presumption, either to refuse anything contained in Scripture, or to add over and above, anything that is not therein."*" Thus much, then, for the all-sufficiency of Holy Scripture, as a rule of faith and life. Here we are all agreed. But we have now arrived at that point, where vast and important differences arise. In what sense shall those Scriptures be understood? If Holy Scripture be the declared will of God, Who is the author of union, and not confusion, it must, upon all important points, have a plain and definite meaning. If there be such a thing as a faith, once for all delivered to the Saints, a faith unchangeable, and indestructible, there must then be certain means of ascertaining, with something like certainty, what that Faith is. The very fact that there is a rule of Faith, involves also another fact, that there must be a rule of interpretation. We know that though all things necessary to salvation are plainly written therein, yet they are to be sought for and searched out.t We know, too, that equally learned and pious men have come to widely different conclusions upon the very same passages, and that they have accused each other of holding unscriptural opinions. Are we then to be left to deduce the Faith from the chaos that has been thrown around the words of truth, and light? We trow not. Thus each man would have a doctrine; whereas it is most positively stated, that as there is one LORD, and one Baptism, so also is there one Faith. The Catholic Churchman, in this emergency, appeals to tradition hermeneutical and confirmatory, adopting the rule of S. Vincent of Lerins-" Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus"-universality, antiquity, and consent. But here he is met at once with the cry, "the Bible and the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants." In one sense we fully admit this watch *These and other similar passages are quoted by Crakenthorp in his valuable Defensio Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ, p. 69. (Wordsworth's Edition.) † See a noble Sermon by the Rev. Professor Blunt. M word; in another it is fallacious. That the Bible, and the Bible only, is the rule of faith, has been fully shown. This is not the point in dispute. It is, as we have before said, How shall the Bible be understood? It is, we presume, meant to infer, when this statement is made, that the Bible and the Bible only, without note or comment, is intended. This, then, can only be said with reference to the Word of GOD in the original languages; inasmuch as the italics, and marginal references, are at the same time a commentary, and a body of notes.* But further, are those who make this assertion consistent with themselves? When, for instance, one party fasten upon certain terms, as election and predestination, and discover, (as they think,) a system of absolute decrees,-of election and reprobation,-when they adduce the interpretation of Calvin, or any kindred divine, they are wittingly or unwittingly sanctioning the principle of tra dition. When again an opposite party maintain the doctrine that CHRIST has died for all-and that all may be saved-that their salvation is conditional-and that Gospel promises involve Gospel duties, and appeal to any modern divine, they too are sanctioning the principle of hermeneutical tradition. The plain fact is that they who are called after the name of man, interpret Holy Scripture according to the views and principles which their leader professed and maintained. They invent a system for themselves, assign a particular meaning to particular passages, and then force their individual interpretation of the Bible, as the Bible itself. Each individual claims the right to discover the truth for himself, and then anathematizes those who, with not less pains, not less prayer, not less study, not less searching, have come to a diametrically opposite conclusion. They never think for a moment that their own interpretation, or that the use of modern commentators to throw light upon anything that may be hard to be understood, impairs in any whit the all-sufficiency of the Bible to salvation. Instead then of thus trusting to individual theories and fancies, we regard the Church of CHRIST as the "guardian and keeper" of Holy Writ. We appeal to the early ages, to the Apostolical and sub-Apostolical; when faith had not yet been supplanted by heresy, when those taught by the Apostles, and their immediate successors enlightened the Church by their writings and expositions, which, in some cases, we may fairly conclude were derived from the Apostles themselves. We appeal to the unanimous consent of their writings, and to the decisions of Ecumenical councils, as containing the true sense of Holy Scripture. Our true position may be seen at once by the *See Professor Blunt's Sermon. following illustration. Suppose that in the present age one were to arise, the founder of an entirely new system, the full and perfect details of which were contained in some works written by his disciples; suppose that schools were formed in the various parts of the world, and that his immediate followers collected others around them, to whom they unfolded all that was contained in the work in question; and these again were to write other treatises illustrative of the principles they avowed, and the practices adopted. Suppose that in subsequent ages, all the advocates of the system, adopting the treatise as of unquestionable authority as a standard of appeal, were to interpret it differently, and rude controversies were to arise among them; how and by what would you be most likely to arrive at the real tenets of the founder? By endeavouring to reconcile the conflicting opinions of your contemporaries, or by direct reference to his immediate followers? Undoubtedly in the latter way; and if on some points of little importance they should differ from each other, whilst you would give to their individual judgment that weight which accidental circumstances seemed to demand, you would adopt their united testimony as the true exponent of the system. 66 This would be deemed a sensible and rational plan with philosophical or other subjects, in which salvation is not concerned; how much more, then, is it needful where the deepest interests are at stake, and error is fatal. Here, says S. Vincent of Lerins, some one may ask, Since the Canon of Scripture is perfect, and is of itself most amply sufficient for everything, what need is there for adding thereto the authority of the Church's interpretation? To this I answer, because on account of its deep and hidden meaning, all men do not receive Holy Writ in one and the same sense; but differently do different persons explain the Divine oracles; so that it would appear that almost as many opinions can be derived from them as there are men. Novatian, for instance, explains it in this manner; Photinus in that; Sabellius in one way; Donatus another; Arius, Eunomius, and Macedonius adopt this interpretation; Apollinaris, Priscillian that; Jovinian, Pelagius, Celestius give one meaning; and, lastly, Nestorius another. And, therefore, very necessary is it, that on account of so great perplexities of so various error, the line of interpreting the writings of the Prophets and Apostles should be drawn according to the rule of Ecclesiastical and Catholic consent."* This, then, is a principle, which while preserving the undoubted supremacy of Scripture, yet provides for the preservation and * Commonitorium, Chap. II. transmission of "THE FAITH," genuine and undefiled, and for the refutation of those heretical opinions, which are not unfrequently referred to Scripture. Thus we contend with Casaubon that the doctrines of Faith, derived from the fountains of Scripture, are brought down to us through the channels of antiquity. Thus we add no authority over and above the one rule of Faith, when we preserve for the Church her due prerogatives as the interpreter of God's Word-the ground, the pillar of truth. We do reverently receive the "unanimous tradition or doctrine of the Church in all ages, which determines the meaning of the Holy Scripture, and makes it more clear, and unquestionable in any point of Faith, wherein we can find it has declared its sense. For we look upon this tradition as nothing else but the Scripture unfolded; not a new thing which is not in the Scripture, but the Scripture explained and made more evident.** to use the not less lucid statement of the learned Waterland, "We allow no doctrine as necessary which stands only on Fathers, or on tradition, oral or written. We admit none for such but what is contained in Scripture, and proved by Scripture rightly interpreted. And we know of no more safe way in necessaries, to preserve the right interpretation, than to take the ancients along with us. We think it a good method to secure our rule of Faith against impostures of all kinds, whether of enthusiasm or false criticism, or conceited reason, or oral tradition, or the assuming dictates of an infallible chair. If we thus preserve the true sense of Scripture, and upon that sense build our faith, we then build upon Scripture only; for the sense of Scripture is Scripture."+ 66 Or, Having thus fully, and we hope clearly, stated the matter, we now proceed to show that it was upon this very principle that our Reformers acted, when they conducted their great and difficult work; and that it was so strongly adhered to by them, that Casaubon said, But if I am not mistaken, the soundest part of the Reformation is in England, where with the study of truth (Scripture) flourishes the study of antiquity." The Reformers maintained that Christianity was not an idea-the germ of which was planted in early times-to be more fully developed in after ages. They knew that the whole counsel of GOD had been fully declared in His Word, and that to the Church had been committed the deposit, whole and entire. They asserted that the pure gold had become dim, and mixed with alloy in later times; that new doctrines were taught instead of the ancient faith, and human inventions and vain traditions had ren Bishop Patrick on Tradition. Enchiridion Anti-Romanum. Vol. III. + Waterland on the Doctrine of the Trinity, Chap. VII. p. 284. |