A thing not the direct cause, of serious and enormous evils. may be in itself good and holy, and yet not be fitting for all,nay, even be most prejudicial to those who are only prepared to abuse it. Hence, the Church, while revering the word, and preserving it with an affection and fidelity of which Protestants can form no conception, has yet always protested against this Protestant mania, for mania it is. She obeys the words of Christ, "Give not that which is holy unto dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine"; and this distribution of Bibles indiscriminately to all sorts of persons, whether prepared to receive and read it with the proper dispositions, with due reverence for the word of God, or not, is a flagrant violation of the precept contained in these words of our Lord. The Scriptures are holy, a treasure of infinite value to the Christian Church; but they are profitable only to such as are initiated into and well grounded in Christianity; to others, they are in general poisonous and destructive. From the reading of the Bible by those not prepared to profit by it has resulted the wildest and maddest fanaticism; and the "thousand and one " sects which have afflicted the Christian world since Luther, and which every right-minded man must deeply deplore, owe their origin to no other cause. People reading the Bible have, as St. Paul complains, 1 Tim. i. 7, learned to assume the title of Doctors of the Law, though "understanding neither the things they say, nor whereof they affirm." Many by this reading have lost their faith; and, indeed, if the apparent contradictions found in the Bible give no little trouble even to the learned, and have been the occasion of voluminous commentaries, what temptations must they not offer to a mere sciolist? Voltaire thought there was no more effectual way of spreading infidelity than by the Bible explained in his own way; and the grand means on which unbelievers of our day rely for spreading their creed of unbelief is the same. prive them of these apparent contradictions and inconsistencies, of the difficulties and objections which they find or suppose they find in the Scriptures themselves, and they would have very few arguments with which to perplex the unlearned and captivate the conceited and vain. And what shall we say of the imminent danger young persons particularly must run of shipwrecking their purity and chastity, when they read the impure actions related in the Old Testament in all the simplicity of primitive manners? Alas! they need not so much to inflame their passions, and it will be well if they escape with De out approving even in theory some crimes which they find to have been committed by persons eminent, in general, for their good qualities and deeds! We could easily enlarge on this topic, but forbear, lest we fall into the very inconvenience we are speaking against. It is, however, a topic well worthy the serious consideration of those who affect to be so shocked with certain passages in Dens's Theology, not intended for general reading, but simply to prepare the moral physician for treating the moral diseases which, unhappily, he is but too sure to encounter in the practice of his profession. Looking to the little good and the enormous evils which result from this indiscriminate distribution of Bibles, to the character of the book itself, and its utter unfitness to serve as the summary of Christian doctrine or as the introduction to religious truth, its obscurities and acknowledged difficulties, many of which baffle the skill of the ablest and most learned commentators, and the ease and readiness with which the unlearned and unstable wrest it to their own destruction, we are forced to conclude that a more ineffectual and absurd way of making the word of God dwell plentifully in all, and to answer the end for which it was designed, than this proposed by Protestants, could not easily be devised. But we come at length to the last two articles of the chapter on the Scriptures. We give them together, for they both mean the same thing, and together form a suitable keystone to the arch of Presbyterianism. They are as follows: "Art. IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known from other places that speak more clearly. X. The Supreme Judge, by whom all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other than the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures. "Acts xv. 15. And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written. John v. 46. For had ye believed Moses ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me. Matt. xxii. 29, 31. Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. Eph. iv. 20. Acts xxviii. 25." Singular articles these! Reduced to plain English, they are simply, Scripture interprets itself, and God is the supreme judge of religious controversies. The proofs in the notes are They have, how in keeping with the assertions in the text. ever, the merit, if not of proving the assertions, at least that of disproving them. They show us our blessed Lord reasoning from the Scriptures against the Jews, and in his own person giving them an example and establishing the necessity of a living tribunal, a speaking judge, for the interpretation of Scripture and the determining of controversies of religion. So far as the example of our Lord and the occasion he found for correcting the Jews in their understanding of the Scriptures can count for any thing, they establish the contrary of what they were brought to prove. It is remarkable how difficult it is for Presbyterians to quote any Scriptural authority in their defence which does not make against them. There is a Providence in this, cheering to the faithful, but which should make Presbyterians fear and tremble. But, in these articles, we have the secret arrived at by our Presbyterian divines as the result of their long and laborious researches. It is now laid open before us. Come, ye men of the Old School, of the New School, Cumberland and all other species of Presbyterians, ye Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, Unitarians, Universalists, and hearken to this lesson of profoundest wisdom! Why in vain dispute and quarrel, why worry and devour each other, about the various matters which separate you one from another? Let the Bible decide. Call forthwith a "world's convention" of all the sects; let them assemble; let the Bible be placed reverently on a stand; let all keep silence; the book will open its mouth, utter a sentence, and all your controversies will be settled, and ye will all bow down in meek and humble submission. How simple and easy! What a pity men should not have discovered this admirable method of settling controversies, before the Westminster divines! Alas! the controversy between sectarians is precisely as to what the decision of the Bible is! Presbyterians, however, have been driven to adopt this rule by the necessity they were under of steering between two formidable sand-bars. If they acknowledged in the Church an always living and divinely instituted tribunal for the determination of controversies, it was all over with them; for that tribunal existed at the birth of Presbyterianism, and had condemned it; and on the other hand, they were ashamed to avow, in just so many words, that every one interprets the Bible as he thinks proper. If the first, they condemned themselves, and must, to be consistent, return to the Church; if the second, then they must adopt an absurdity too gross even for them to swallow. What, then, could they do? Mystify themselves and others with high-sounding words, meaning nothing. They must say, Scripture interprets itself, and the Holy Ghost is the supreme judge of controversies. But as the Holy Ghost decides, according to them, only as speaking in the Scriptures, and as the Bible has never been heard to utter a single syllable, they gain nothing, but are ultimately reduced to the rule, Each one understands the Scriptures as he chooses, the great fundamental principle of Protestantism, and nearly the only one in which all Protestants are able to agree. So, after all, in trying to avoid one sand-bar, they stick fast on the other, or as one of our former legislators would express it, "In keeping clear of Skiller, they run foul of Charybogus." - We do not intend, on this occasion, to give the various and satisfactory proofs of the necessity or of the fact of a living tribunal in the Christian Church for determining religious controversies. But we may say, the tribunal alleged by Presbyterians is obviously no tribunal at all; and the fact, that they are ashamed to avow it, and seek in every possible way to disguise it, is a sufficient refutation of the principle of private interpretation, or, if not, it has already been several times and amply refuted in the pages of this journal, as well as elsewhere. It will suffice for our present purpose to adduce a couple of edifying commentaries on the Presbyterian rule, supplied by the very volume before us. In the Form of Government, p. 364, we read, "To the General Assembly belongs the power of deciding in all controversies respecting doctrine and discipline, of reproving, warning, or bearing testimony against error in doctrine, or immorality in practice, in any church, presbytery, or synod, . . . . of suppressing schismatical contentions and disputations"; and on page 378, that the Presbyterian minister who preaches at the ordination of a candidate is to propose to him the following questions "Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice? Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of this Church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures? . Do you promise subjection to your brethren in the Lord?" To all these questions the candidate answers in the affirmative. Well done, O ye learned divines ! These lessons of sub mission given to the candidate are admirable; these enactments to enforce obedience to the decisions of the General Assembly are truly edifying! But, dear friends, how could you so soon and so completely forget and abandon your cherished and favorite doctrine? How could you write one thing in the beginning of your book, and give it such a flat denial in the end? How could you establish one principle in the Confession, and a contrary principle in the Form of Government? Indeed, most amiable doctors, you hardly treat us fairly. Which are we to believe, the Confession or the Form of Government? In one place you tell us the Scripture and the Scripture alone can interpret itself; and now in another, instead of the Scriptures, you give us the decisions of the General Assembly. You told us that the supreme judge in controversies can be none other than the Holy Spirit; and now, when controversies arise among you, instead of having recourse to "the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures," you modestly invest the General Assembly with "the power of deciding all controversies." In the Confession you solemnly assert that "the decrees of councils, the opinions of ancient writers, the doctrines of men, and private spirits," are to be brought only before the bar of the supreme judge, "the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures"; and now you summon us before the bar of the General Assembly, that is to say, before a couple of hundred of Presbyterian ministers, and a like number of Presbyterian elders! You were telling us, a moment ago, that the Holy Spirit speaks only through the Scriptures; and now you tell us, that he speaks through the Presbyterian elders of the United States! Really, gentlemen, this obliviousness on your part is too bad, altogether too bad. Alas for the poor candidate! How deplorable is his fate! After having received the assurance of having no other interpreter of Scripture than Scripture itself, and no other judge but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures, he now finds that all was a delusion, and that he must tamely promise subjection to his brethren, and follow their decision, or be ignominiously dismissed and branded for life. Alas! how many lies does that first lie render necessary! Thus it is that error must necessarily stamp all its proceedings with contradiction and lie. Mentita est iniquitas sibi. Protestants, and Presbyterians in particular, were at first most obstreporous against all authority; for this was necessary in order to be able to wrest a portion of the faithful from their |