Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

But even if it were so, this does not alter the state of the case. It does not prove that patristical tradition is a divine informant, or infallible record of Apostolical teaching. It in fact leaves us precisely where it found us; even in possession of that Divine record of revealed truth which God has seen fit in his infinite mercy to pre

serve to us.

217

CHAPTER IX.

THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE TO TEACH MANKIND THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.

AMONG the various objections brought against the views for which we here contend, it is urged that Scripture is too obscure to be able to sustain the character we attribute to it; for that, even in the fundamental points of faith and practice, it needs an interpreter to point out its meaning, and that in "tradition" we have such an interpreter, and one "practically infallible," demanding our faith as a witness of the oral teaching of the Apostles.1

Now that we have not in tradition any certain witness of the oral teaching of the Apostles, nor (in whatever light it be viewed) a divine or practically infallible interpreter of Scripture, has been, I hope, already proved; and consequently it follows, (as far as our opponents' views are concerned,) that Holy Scripture is our only divine and infallible Teacher. Whatever obscurity, then, there may be in the revelation there made to us of the Christian religion, it is the only revelation of it we possess. Whatever difficulties or obscurities may have been left by God in the Scriptures, there is no authoritative interpretation of them demanding our belief. He who is plain beyond that which is written, goes beyond his authority, i. e. beyond that for which divine inspiration can be claimed.

Hence, Scripture being our only inspired Teacher, and

See vol. i. p. 38.

containing all which has any claim upon our belief as a divine revelation, it seems but reasonable to conclude that nothing can be a fundamental point of faith or practice which is not plainly revealed therein. For if Scripture is our sole divine informant, and was written for the instruction of men generally, it seems far from consistent with the gift of such a rule of faith that it should be so obscure in the very fundamental points as to oblige us to depend upon human teachers to know what it means. And if, through carelessness, indifference, prejudice, or any other cause, men remain blind to what is there plainly delivered, such perverseness is easily accounted for, and forms no ground fór accusing the word of God of obscurity.

On this argument, however, I shall not dwell further, because it is my purpose to proceed at once to more direct evidence of the sufficiency of Scripture to teach the faith, independently of what has preceded this chapter.

In so doing, I shall first offer a few preliminary observations, to guard against misconception, and show what it is for which we here contend, and then proceed to prove the three following points.

I. That all the fundamental and essential points of faith and practice are clearly and plainly delivered in the Scriptures.

II. That all the doctrines of the Christian faith are as plainly delivered there as, to our knowledge, they are revealed.

III. That the best and only infallible expositor of Scripture is Scripture.

To guard against misconception, I shall offer, in the first place, a few preliminary observations, to make it more clear to the reader what it is for which we contend.

And here I would observe first, that when we speak of all the essential doctrines of Christianity being clearly revealed to us in the Scriptures, we are not affirming that the truths themselves so revealed are cleared from all mysteriousness, and made obvious to the understand

ings of men, for many of them are, and ever will be, to our finite understandings, mysterious and obscure; but, that they are plainly, openly, and undeniably delivered there, that is, that the sacred writers have delivered, in the plainest terms, the revelations of divine truth vouchsafed to them, and consequently, that all which God purposed to reveal to the world by them is so expressed, that not even the Apostles themselves could declare it more clearly.

I would instance this in the very case to which our opponents, following the Romanists, point us as supplying an argument in their favour, viz. the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. Not to insist here upon a point which will come under consideration more properly elsewhere, viz. that the Nicene Fathers deduced this doctrine altogether from Scripture, I would ask whether this doctrine is not much more plainly delivered in Scripture than in that document to which our opponents refer us for it, viz. the Nicene Creed. The expression there used, though perhaps the best that could be found, so imperfectly expresses the doctrine, as to have been absolutely rejected by the orthodox at the Council of Antioch, against Paul of Samosata, as an unorthodox phrase; and it is evidently open to an unorthodox interpretation, which Scripture, taken as a whole, and compared with itself, is not. It is an orthodox term, rightly understood; convenient it may be for a compendious statement of the truth in a confession of faith; but it is not equivalent to the exposition of the doctrine contained in Scripture. The true doctrine is not so clearly, plainly, and unambiguously expressed by it as it is in Scripture, taken as a whole.

We do not then here deny, but, on the contrary, affirm, that many of the truths delivered in the Scriptures are mysterious and obscure, and beyond the power of man fully to comprehend; and this is the great reason why, with minds naturally disinclined to them, men are unwilling to receive them as they are revealed, however plainly revealed.

Nor do we deny that there are many points among non-essentials, not so plainly delivered, but that men may reasonably be divided in opinion as to the precise doctrine delivered; and such points, perhaps, were not intended to be made known to all.

Nor further do we deny that some particular passages may be very obscure.

But all such obscurity is quite consistent with that for which we are here contending. Nay, it has been said, not without reason, by some, that God has purposely ordered it thus, that while the fundamentals of the faith should be so clear that no sincere and earnest enquirer could mistake in them, there should also be what might serve to exercise the industry and mental powers of man, and carry out his mind to the contemplation of spiritual and heavenly objects.

Moreover, we are not here asserting that it is sufficient to put the Scriptures into the hands of children and men wholly illiterate, and leave them to deduce the faith from them, any more than it would be sufficient to put the statutes of the realm, however plainly expressed they might be, into their hands, and tell them to deduce from them a digest of the statute law. But this arises not from the obscurity of one or the other; nor does it show the necessity of an infallible interpreter, but only the need of literary assistance to inform such of the meaning of the expressions used, and point out to them what, through the imperfect development of their faculties, they might have misunderstood or passed unnoticed. It is not tradition which they want, but a knowledge of the meaning of the words used in Scripture. And such deficiency of information on their part, cannot be justly urged in proof of Scripture being obscure; and still less of the necessity of tradition or the Church, as the Church, to explain it. And the truth is, that so far as the mind is able to receive the faith, it needs but little education to enable a man to learn from Scripture the fundamentals of the faith.

Further, when we contend for the sufficiency of Scrip

« PoprzedniaDalej »