should meet with a copy of the sacred volume, and address him-
self to its perusal, it cannot be denied that it would address him
in the same tone of authority, which it uses towards those born
in the bosom of the Christian church. He would be called upon
to believe its doctrines, to confide in its promises, to obey its



GKOUND OF FAITH IN THE SCRIPTUEES. 189

precepts. He would be morally guilty in the siglit of God, if lie
did not ; and he would be regarded as a wise and good man if he
did. Beyond controversy then the book must contain its own
evidence of being the word of God ; it must prove its own in-
spiration, just as the moral law proves its own authority, or tlio
being of God reveals itself to every open heart. There is noth-
ing mystical, enthusiastic, or even extraordinary in this. A
mathematical work contains in itself the evidence of whatever
truth belongs to its reasonings or conclusions. All that one man
can do for another, in producing conviction of its truth, is to aid
him in understanding it, enabling him to see the evidence that
is in the book itself. The same may be said of any work of art,
or of any production of genius. Its truthfulness, its claims to ad-
miration, its power to refine or please, are all inherent qualities,
which must be perceived, in order to be really believed. So, too,
of any work which treats of our moral obligations ; no matter
who wrote it, if it contains truth, w^e assent to it, if it includes
error, we reject it This is not a thing which, in the proper
sense of the word, admits of proof. The only possible proof of
the correctness of a moral doctrine, is to make us see its truth ; its
accordance with the law of God, the supreme standard, and with
that law as written in our own hearts. Thus in the case, which
we have supposed, of a man's reading the Bible without know-
ing whence it came, he would, if properly and naturally affected,
be convinced of all, and judged of all, and thus the secrets of his
heart being made manifest, falling down on his face, he would
worship God, and report that of a truth, that book is not the
word of man, but the word of God.

He would find, in reading the Scriptures, the existence of God
as the creator and governor of all things, always presented ; his
perfections, as infinitely wise, powerful, and good, held up for
his adoration and confidence. All this, no matter, whence the
book came, is so holy, so true, so consonant to right reason and
right feeling, that he cannot doubt its truth. He finds, further,
a law therein revealed as obligatory on man, which is holy, just,
and good ; all whose requirements as soon as understood, assert
an authority over his conscience, which he feels to be legitimate
and supreme. In comparing himself with that standard of ex-
cellence, he finds, that in all things he has come sliort, that not
only in innumerable particular acts, but in the inward, habitual



190 GROUND OF FAITH IN THE SCRIPTURES.

state of liis heart, he is unholy. This conviction is unavoidably
attended with a sense of guilt ; he feels that he deserves to be
punished, nay, that a moral necessity exists for such punish-
ment ; he would gladly punish himself, could he do it satisfac-
torily, or so as to still his conscience. This sense of inward
pollution and exposure to punishment, prompts to strenuous and
continued efibrts to change his heart, and to conform his life, to
the high standard of excellence presented in the wonderful book,
which has revealed him to himself, that has made him know
what he is, and in what relation he stands to Grod. All his efforts
however vigorous, or however long sustained, fail of success. The
power of evil and the guilty conscience continue ; and he sinks
down into a state of hopeless despondency. In reading fm'ther,
he finds that this book tells him just what he has found in his
own experience to be true ; that the heart of man is deceitful
above all things and desperately wicked ; that there is none
righteous, no not one ; that no man can come unto God except
the Father draw him ; that we must be made new creatures,
born not of the will of man but of Grod ; that by the deeds of the
law, by our own obedience to the rule of duty, no man can be
just with God ; that without the shedding of blood, that is,
without an atonement, there is no remission of sins. All these
things are true, true in themselves, true independently of the as-
sertion of them in the word of God. They are truths which have
their foundation in our nature and in our relation to God. Here
then, the existence and perfections of God ; the demands of the
moral law ; the sinfulness and helplessness of men ; the necessity
of holiness and of an atonement, are all taught in this book, and
when so taug;ht as to be understood, they so commend them-
selves to the conscience that they cannot be denied. They are,
therefore, received without any external testimony of any kind,
to authenticate them as matters of divine revelation. Convinced
of these truths, our supposed reader of the Bible finds that in
every part of it, provision is made for these two great necessities
of man, holiness and atonement ; the}^ arc everywhere repre-
sented as necessary, and the way in which they are attained is
more or less distinctly unfolded. The Son of God is revealed as
coming in the flesh, dying for our sins, reconciling us to God,
securing the gift of the Holy Ghost, and offering eternal life to
all who come unto God by Him. There is in the character, the



GROUND OF FAITH IN THE SCRIPTURES. 191

conduct, the doctrines, the claims, the promises, of the Ee-
deemer, such majesty, such excellence, such authority over the
heart and conscience, such a divine glory, the glory as of the
only begotten Son of God, full of grace and truth, that every one
who apprehends that glory, feels that he is bound to honor the
Son even as he honors the Father ; that the same confidence,
the same obedience, the same love are due to the Son as to Grod,
for he is God manifested in the flesh. If it is absurd to say that
no man believes in God, who has not comprehended some philo-
sophical argument for his existence, it is no less absurd to say
that no man can rationally believe in Christ, who has not been
instructed in the historical arguments which confirm his mission,
or who has not been told by others that he is the Son of God.
We believe in Christ, for the same reason that we believe in
God. His character and claims have been exhibited to us, and
we assent to them ; we see his glory and we recognise it as the
glory of God. This exhibition is made in the gospel ; it is made
to ever}' reader of the word. And when such a reader, though he
had never before heard of the Bible, finds this glorious per-
sonage, ratifying all those truths which were latent in his own
consciousness, and needed only to be stated to be recognised as
truths ; and when he hears him say that he came to give his life
a ransom for many, that whosoever believeth on him shall never
perish, but have eternal life ; he confides in him with humble
and entire confidence. And when he further hears him speak of
a future state of blessedness, for which, by the renewing of the
Holy Ghost, men are prepared, he. understands some of the
deepest mysteries of his nature, the obscure apprehension of im-
mortality, the strange mixture of longing and dread in reference
to a future state, of which he was conscious but could not under-
stand. Such a man believes the gospel on the highest possible
evidence ; the testimony of God himself with and by the truth
to his own heart ; making him see and feel that it is truth. The
more the Bible is thus studied, the more it is understood ; the
more the relation of its several parts, the excellence of its precepts,
the suitableness of its doctrines and promises, the correspondence
of the experience, which it details or demands, with the exercises
of our own hearts, are appreciated, the more firm and enlightened
does the conviction become that it is indeed the word of God.
Of this evidence to the inspiration of the Scriptures, which is



192 GROUND or FAITH IN THE SCRIPTURES.

contained in the Scriptures themselves, and which hy the Spirit
of God is revealed and applied to the hearts of the devont readers
of the Bible, it may be remarked, in the first place, that it is of
itself perfectly adequate as the foundation of a rational and sav-
ing faith, and that it applies to all parts of the sacred volume ;
partly because it is found in all parts, and partly because the
different portions of the Bible, the historical, doctrinal, devo-
tional, and perceptive, are so connected, that they mutually imply
each other, so that one cannot be rejected without doing violence
more or less to the whole. In the second place, this evidence is
in fact the ground of the faith of all the true people of God,
whether learned or unlearned. Whatever other evidence they
may have, and which in argument they may properly adduce,
they still are behevers, in the true sense of that term, only so far
as their faith rests on this inward testimony of God with the
truth, revealing and applying it as truth to the heart. In the
third i^lace, this is the evidence on which the Scriptures challenge
universal faith and obedience. It is the ground on which they
rest their claim, and on which they pronounce a sentence of con-
demnation on all who do not believe, as not of God, for if they
were of God, they would know of the doctrine whether it was his
or not. In the fourth place, it is obvious that this evidence, in
all its fulness and force, may be exhibited to a man, who knew
nothing from others of the origin of the Scriptures, even to
one who should read them for the first time in a desert island.
Such a man being convinced by this evidence that the Scriptures
were the word of God ; or finding that the writers who pro-
pounded these truths, and who exhibited such moral excellence
as to secure his entire confidence, declared themselves to be in-
spired, constantly disclaimed being the discoverers or authors of
the doctrines which they taught ; when he hears them always
speaking in the name and by the authority of God, as his mes-
sengers, he receives their declaration with full credence. How
indeed could it be otherwise ? How could they know of them-
selves all they teach, and how could men who were so obviously
sincere and holy, be false witnesses and imposters .^ Without
going, therefore, beyond the Bible itself, the conviction may be
rationally arrived at, and is in fact in multitudes of cases, with-
out doubt entertained, that its authors spake as they were moved
by the Holy Ghost.



GROUND OF FAITH IN THE SCRIPTURES. 193

Let US sujDpose that a man tlius convinced, should have the
opportunity of learning the history of the Bible ; of tracing it up
with certainty to the times of the apostles ; of proving with his-
toric accuracy, that the books comj)osing the New Testament,
were written by the apostles of Christ ; that to these men their
divine master expressly promised the gift of inspiration ; that
they uniformly claimed that gift, saying. He that is of God
heareth us, and he that is not of God, heareth not us ; that this
claim was authenticated by God himself bearing them witness
with signs, and wonders, and divers miracles and gifts of the
Holy Ghost ; that effects followed their ministry which admit
of no rational solution but their being the messengers of God ;
that all they did, all the facts they announced, all the effects
they produced, or which attended the introduction of Christian-
ity, had been predicted centuries before, in books which can be
proved to have existed at that antecedent period ; nay that the
predictions in those books, and in the New Testament itself, are
in some cases, in the course of fulfilment before our own eyes ;
and finally, that the claim of these messengers to inspiration,
was recognized by all who received their doctrines, and who by
their faith were made new creatures in Christ Jesus ; suppose
all this to be proved historically, as it has been proved a thou-
sand times, it may be that the faith of a supposed believer might
not be really thereby strengthened ; he would however be fur-
nished with an answer to all gainsayers, and would be able to
say, in the spirit of our Lord's own remonstrance, If ye believe
not the gospel for its own sake, at least believe it for these works'
sake

With regard to the Old Testament, much the same course of
remark might be pursued. The writers of its several books
claimed to be the messengers of God ; they authenticated that
claim (with few, if any, exceptions), by miracles or prophecy ;
they taught the truth — truth as far above that contained in any
uninspired writings, as the heavens are above the earth ; the
predictions which they contain, scattered over the whole volume,
given in detached parts, and at long intervals, yet all concen-
trating in one great system, have been fulfilled and are still ful-
filling. And besides all this, every part of the Jewish Scriptures,
were in every form recognised as the word of God, as infallible,
incapable of being broken, more certain of accomplishment than

13



194 GROUND OF FAITH IN THE SCRIPTUEES,

heaven and earth of continuance, hy our Lord and his apostles,
of whose divine authority, or divine inspiration, we have such
abundant evidence.

Such is a very cursory view of the grounds on which Protest-
ants are accustomed to rest their faith in the inspiration of the
books vvhicii they recognise as the word of God. If we apply
these principles to the Apocrypha, what is the result ? In the
first place their authors do not claim to be inspired ; they do
not come before the people as the messengers of God, claiming
faith and obedience, on pain of the divine displeasure, and con-
firming that claim by personal holiness or by mighty works. On
the contrary, they disclaim any such authority, or speak in terms
utterly incompatible with it. Then, in the second place, there
is nothing in the contents of these writings, which leads to the
assumption of their being inspired. Some of them are historical,
some of them are moral essays of a more or less philosophical
cast ; some of them are fables. They differ very much in value
in all respects, but there is nothing in any of them which might
not be expected from Jews living either in Palestine or Egypt,
whose opinions had. been more or less modified by a knowledge
of the Oriental or Grecian systems of philosophy. They are just
such books as uninspired men under their circumstances might
be expected to write. Then, on the other hand, they often con-
tradict the universally recognised books of the Old Testament,
or are at variance with themselves ; they contain false doctrines
or false principles of morals ; or, in many cases, absurd stories.
Hov/ can such books be received as the word of God ? In the
third place, there is not the slightest evidence of their having
been received as inspired by the contemporaries of their authors,
but abundant evidence that they were not so received. This is
admitted by the Romanists themselves, who concede that they
formed no part of the Jewish canon. In the fourth place, they
were not recognised by Christ and his apostles as part of the
word of God. They are never quoted as of authority, never re-
ferred to as " Scripture," or as the words of the Spirit, in the
New Testament. To this point the tenth letter in Professor
Thornwell's book is devoted, where it is most satisfactorily dem-
onstrated that there are no passages in the New Testament
which need be assumed to refer to any corresponding passage in
the Apocrypha ; and that if there were, it would no more prove



GROUND OF FAITH IN THE SCRIPTURES. 195

their inspiration, than the inspiration of the heathen poets can
he proved from Paul's use of their language, or the inspiration of
Philo from the coincidences between his writings and the lan-
guage of the apostle John. In the fifth place, the Apocrypha
were not recognised as inspired hy the Christians of the first four
centuries. To the proof of this point Mr. Thornwell has devoted
five letters, from the fourteenth to the eighteenth both included.
In these letters the reader will find a laborious and accurate ex-
amination of all the passages quoted from the early Fathers in
support of the authority of the Apocrypha ; wherein it is clearly
shown that nothing can be adduced from that source, wliich
would not prove the inspiration of books which the church of
Kome rejects. It need hardly be remarked that even if some, or
even all the early Fathers, regarded the writings in controversy
as part of the sacred canon, it would be no sufficient proof of
their inspiration. That they received the books of the New
Testament as of divine authority, is a valid argument in their
behalf, because it affords satisfactory evidence that those books
were written by the men whose names they bear, of whose in-
spiration we have abundant proof, and their testimony that the
Apocrypha were written by their reputed authors would have a
certain historic value ; but could not prove the inspiration of
those writings, unless we knew from other sources that those
authors were inspired. Bat the Fathers' thinking the Apocrypha
to be inspired is no proof that the apostles so regarded them.
The apostles are not to be responsible for all the doctrines the
Fathers entertained. This testimony in behalf of the Apocrypha,
unsatisfactory as it would be, cannot be adduced, for the real testi-
mony of the early church is strongly against the mspiration of the
writings in question. In proof of this point, we refer our readers
to Mr. ThornweU's concluding letter, in which it is proved that
these books " are not included in the catalogues given by Melito,
bishop of Sardis, who flourished in the second century, of Origen,
Athanasius, Hilaiy, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephiphanius, Gregory
Nazianzen, Kuffin, and others ; neither are they mentioned
among the canonical books recognised by the council of Laodicea."
We hardly know how a stronger case could be made out, than
Professor Thornwell has thus made. Nothing seems to favor the
assumption of the Apocrypha being insj)ired ; while all the
evidence, both internal and external, is against it. But have



196 GROUND OF FAITH IX THE SCEIPTUEES.

the Romanists nothing to say in their behalf ? Nothing that is
of the least weight with a Protestant. They do indeed refer to
what they regard as allusions to those writings in the New Tes-
tament, which, if admitted, would only prove their existence at
that period, which no one denies. They further refer to the fact
that several of the Fathere quote them, and quote them too as
" holy Scripture ;" but this expression the Fathers often use in
the general sense of religious, as opposed to profane writings,
and apply it to books for whose inspiration no one contends.
The main dependence of the Romanists is the authority of their
own church. The council of Trent has decreed that the Apocry-
pha were written by the inspiration of God, and of course those,
and those only, who believe that council to have been infallible,
bow to their decision.

This brings uj) the question of the infallibility of the church ;
much too wide a subject to be here entered upon. It must suf-
fice to show in a few words, that the authority of the council of
Trent, is no sufficient ground of faith in the inspiration of the
Apociypha. The whole doctrine of the Romanists, as to the
authority of that council, rests on a series of gratuitous and un-
scriptural assumj^tions. The fundamental en'or of Popery and
Puseyism, is transferring to the body of external professors of
Christianity, that is, to what is commonly called the visible
church, what the Scriptures say of the church of God. The body
to which the promises and prerogatives of the church belong,
according to Scrij^ture, antiquity, and the best men even of the
Roman communion itself, consists of true believers, of those who
are the members of Christ's body and partakers of his Spirit.
Christ has indeed promised to preserve his church, that is, his
own people, from all fatal error ; to lead them into the knowl-
edge of the truth, and to keep them through faith unto eternal
life. But how is this promise to preserve and guide his peoj^le, a
promise to guide those who are not his people ? How are promises
made to the children of God, promises to the children of the world?
How are assurances given to those who are born of the Spirit, who
are led by the Spirit, who are the temples of the Holy Ghost,
to be applied to the unrenewed, and to those who pertain to the
church only in name, or by office ? It is only by denying that
there is any such thing as regeneration, or sjoiritual religion, or
by merging all that the Bible says of the new birth, of union



GROUND OF FAITH IN THE SCRIPTURES. 197

with Christ, and of a holy life, into descriptions of church-rites
and church-ceremonies, that the least plausibility can be given to
the Romish theory. The word " church" is always a collective
term for the called, the chosen, the true people of God ; and
what is said of the church and of its prerogatives, belongs only
to those who are thus called and sanctified. The promises,
therefore, which secure the church from apostacy, and which
guaranty her perpetuity, have no reference to those who are not
the true children of God, any more than the promises to Israel,
secured the gift of the Holy Spirit to the natural descendants of
Abraham.

The first and most fruitful fallacy of Rome, therefore, is
founded on the ambiguity of the word church, which, as the
recipient of the promises, means the true people of God, though
in ordinary language, it is often ap23lied to all who profess to be
his people, or call themselves Christians. They err moreover in
extending far beyond its scriptural limits, the promise of guid-
ance as made to the church. Christ has promised to purify his
church ; but that does not secure perfect holiness for all its
members, in this life. He has also promised to guide them into
the knowledge of the truth ; but that does not preserve them
from all ignorance or error ; it only secures them from failing of
that knowledge which is essential to eternal Kfe. The only sense
in which even the true church is infallible is, that its members
are kept from the rejection of any doctrine essential to their sal-
vation. Rome not satisfied Avith attributing this infallibility to
a body which has no claim to it, extends it to all matters of faith
and even (according to one school), of fact. A twofold unscrip-
tural and baseless assumption.

But should we admit that the external or visible church has
been invested with the prerogative of infallibility, how would that
prove the Romish doctrine on this stlbject ? According to the
ultramontane doctrine, the pope is the seat and centre of this
prerogative ; according to the Gallican doctrine, it resides in the
prelates. But for either of these assumptions there is not a
shadow of claim from Scripture. The prelates are not the church,
and the pope is not the church. The promise of the Holy Spirit
to be with his disciples, to guide them into the knowledge of the
truth, was neither made nor fulfilled to the chief officers of the
church alone. It was addressed to all the disciples ; and it was



198 GKOUND or FAITH IN THE SCRIPTUEES.

fulfilled in the apostolic and every subsequent age, to all true
believers. Here again is another gratuitous assumption, neces-
sary to make out the arguments of Romanists, in support of the
infallibility of the council of Trent.

But supposing we should grant that the prelates are the
church, that to them in their collective capacity, the gift of in-
fallibility belongs, still, how does it follow that the council of
Trent was infallible ? All the prelates were not assembled
there ; all did not concur in the designation of the members of
the council as their representatives ; all have not concurred in
the decisions of that body. On the contrary, the council was
composed of a mere handful of bishops, a small minority of the
prelates of Christendom concurred either in their appointment
or in their decisions. Admitting then that infallibility resides in
the bishops of the universal church, in their collective capacity,
which is the most rational form of the Romish doctrine, we must
believe that all the Greek, all the Armenian, all the Syrian, all
the British, all the Swedish prelates are out of the church, before
we can believe that the council of Trent represented the church,