for the use of the people, necessarily implies that it was to be read by the people, else the writing of it was needless. If all religious instruction was necessarily to be oral, as Mr. Andrews seems to allege, then David should have merely recited the psalm to the priests, and commanded them to recite it to the people; but the simple fact of its being written under divine inspiration, implies the obligation of reading it upon all to whom it is addressed.

I admit, that until the time of Moses, it does not appear that there was any written revelation of the will of God, and of course no obligation upon the people to read it. The Almighty was then pleased to hold direct communications with the patriarchs, in a manner quite unknown to us; and the popish priests would have the people to believe that they stand in the same relation to God as the patriarchs did; and that their word-of-mouth teaching is entitled to the same respect as that of Noah, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: but this proves nothing but the impiety and impudence of these priests; for they are not able to show, by any sign or miracle, that they have received such power or authority; and their general character is not such as to induce us to believe that they have more direct communication with Heaven than other men.

Whenever we bring a Papist to the Bible, we are sure to find him in error; and this shows it to be their wisdom to keep at as great a distance from the Bible as possible. The Vindicator has fallen into several mistakes in his account of Moses and of the law. For instance, he tells us, that Moses having broken the two tables, "was obliged to supplicate the Almighty for another table." This is a mere invention of his own, or of some other Papist, from whom he has taken it; for it does not appear that Moses ever thought of supplicating the Almighty to replace that which, in his anger, he had destroyed. The renewing of the two tables was as much of God himself, as the giving of the law at first; and it was without any supplication on the part of Moses, as the reader may see, Exod. xxxiv. 1. Deut. x. 1.

Again, the Vindicator would have us believe, that when Moses received the law, he was commanded to lock it up, and to conceal it from the people, just as the church of Rome concealed the Bible; and that nobody was to see it but the priests, who were to declare it to the people by word of mouth. It is admitted, that the identical tables, written by the finger of God, were to be deposited in the ark of the covenant; but Moses engrossed the very words in his book of Exodus, and again in the book of Deuteronomy, which shows that he understood it to be his duty to commit the law to writing, that it might be read by all the people. Nay, he gave a commandment that every head of a family should write it, or have it written, that all his household might have it constantly before their eyes, as well as sounded in their ears. "Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart. And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou

shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates." Deut. vi. 4-9. The Vindicator says, Moses was not commanded to publish copies of the law for the use of the people; but it is all the same if he did, acting under divine direction, publish copies of it, and command every family to have a copy of it. He entertained no fear that the people would misinterpret it, or wrest it to their own destruction, as the church of Rome always affects to fear that her children will do with the Bible. It is probable that many a Jew did misinterpret and wrest the law to his own destruction, by trusting in it, instead of trusting in Him who is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth; but that was no reason why every Jew should not possess a copy of the law; so the possibility of persons wresting the Bible to their own destruction, is no reason why they should not possess, and be allowed to read, a Bible.

In reply to the cavils of a writer in the Orthodox Journal, I had said, that if any man was so wickedly inclined, as to wrest the scripture to any sense or nonsense he pleased, I knew no power on earth that had a right to hinder him; that God reserved judgment in such a case to himself; and that though every church had a right to put away from among them those who should pervert the scriptures, no man or body of men had a right to prevent the exercise of private judgment. The amount of this is, that every man has a right to judge for himself; and that if he happens to judge differently from the church to which he belongs, they have a right to put him away, if they think the difference of such importance, as to affect the fundamental principles of their association. They have no right to say, you shall not believe so and so; but if such be your faith, that we cannot have fellowship with you, you must depart from us. This they have a right to say; and this a church ought to say to every one who departs from the faith, or holy practice. enjoined by Christ, and illustrated by his apostles. In this simple statement of a very obvious principle laid down in the New Testament, the Vindicator can find nothing but a mass of contradictions and inconsistencies. The following are his words; and though the passage is long, I hope the reader will have patience to peruse it with attention:

"Well, were the church of Rome to exhibit such a mass of nonsense as 'THE PROTESTANT' would fain persuade himself and his readers she does, I am sure it does not, it cannot be, equal, be it what it will, to the absurd, ridiculous, and contradictory rhapsody I have just quoted from his thirty-second number, p. 245. The sapient writer knows no power on earth that has a right to hinder a man from turning the word of God into nonsense, if he is so inclined; and yet he admits that God has authorized his churches to exclude him from their communion for so doing! What inconsistency is this! If men choose to turn the truth of God's word into falsehood, they must answer to God, not to man, because he has reserved judgment in this case to himself; and yet he has also authorized his churches to pass judgment upon a case which he expressly reserves to himself; for this they must do, if they have power to put the offenders from their body for their gross perversion and wickedness. Well, reader, having allowed that God has authorized his churches to put away the wilful perverter and falsifier of his sacred word, he denies in the very same sentence that he has given any man or body of men on earth, the power either to allow or prevent the

ones.

free exercise of private judgment. Were ever such barefaced contradictions before submitted to a British public, in an age so enlightened as the present is presumed to be? Talk of the monstrous nonsense of the church of Rome, truly; why what are we to call this specimen of 'new light' logic? THE PROTESTANT' intimates, in his thirty-first number, p. 245, "it is vain to expect that Mr. Andrews will argue upon scriptural principles;" I wish he would endeavour to argue on rational That there is a power on earth to disallow the free exercise of private judgment on matters of faith, is as clear from scripture as the sun at noonday, and nothing but ignorance or wilfu! perversion could instigate my opponent to advance so palpable an untruth. Does not our Saviour, in a before quoted text from Matt. xviii. declare, that the church has this power of allowing and preventing the exercise of private judgment? If a man presumed to differ from those things which he commanded his apostles to teach all nations, did not Christ order him to be reported to the church, and if he would not hear the church, that is, if he did not relinquish his private judgment to the public decision. of those who are appointed to be judges in Israel, was he not to be cast out as an unworthy member, and consigned to infamy? What is this but conferring a power on a body of men to disallow and prevent the exercise of private judgment? The men from Judea, mentioned in a preceding page, exercised their private judgment; but did not the apostles and elders condemn them for so doing? And did not Peter inform the multitude, that God had chosen them to convey the words of the gospel by word of mouth, that hearing they might believe? Again, THE PROTESTANT' avers, that the Bible, if perused with an unbiased mind, is the plainest book in the world; that it is perfectly level to the capacity of a child' But is not this setting up his own arrogant opinion in opposition to the sentiments of the apostle St. Peter, who, in his second epistle, iii. 15, 16, writes, Even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable, wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.' These words clearly demonstrate that the scripture is not so plain a book, is not so perfectly level to the capacity of a child, as 'THE PROTESTANT' affirms it is; and therefore he stands convicted of twisting and perverting scripture to a contrary sense than what an inspired apostle declares it to be. Whether the biblical sage was fearful he had overstepped the bounds of truth in this assertion, I cannot say; but I find him, in his thirty-third number, p. 256, admitting, that while he maintains that such parts of the Bible as relate directly, to the salvation of sinners are level to the capacity of a child, he must allow that there are some things not easily understood, particularly prophecies not yet accomplished, and of which (he says) the priests are as ignorant as the meanest of their people.' Well, this is an admission which I think operates against the system of universal distribution and universal reading. St. Peter says, that in all the epistles of his chosen co-apostle Paul, there are some things hard to be understood, which men wrest to their own destruction, as they do also other parts of the scripture; and is it not therefore clear, that these epistles were not intended for the multitude, but that the people were to confide in those

who were appointed bishops and pastors of their souls? If the scriptures were meant to be accessible to all men, would not copies of them have been multiplied before the apostles were sent on their commission? And yet the New Testament was not even penned until a vast number of Jews and Gentiles had been converted to the faith of Christ. Surely this fact is sufficient to overthrow the Protestant doctrine of the Bible, the Bible alone, is the rule of faith, and more particularly the newfangled and popular one of universal scripture reading. Let a Bible be put into the hands of a child, or even of an adult, without note or comment, and let him be left to point out from the book, without any instruction from a second person, the passages which relate to the way of salvation, and I will answer for it, either of them will make a pretty hand of it." Col. 246-249.

In this passage the reader will find the persecuting spirit of popery explicitly defended. There is, says the Vindicator, a power on earth to disallow the free exercise of private judgment. This power he ascribes to the church, meaning of course the church of Rome, all the authority of which is exercised by the pope and his clergy. It is the pope and the clergy, therefore, that have the power of disallowing the free exercise of private judgment; that is, to cast out, and consign to infamy, all who presume to find in the word of God any doctrine or ordinance which the church of Rome does not teach; or who find that some of the doctrines of that church are contrary to what they read in the Bible. We all know that the practice of the church of Rome has been, to consign to infamy, and to flames too, a countless multitude, in many nations, for no other crime than the exercise of private judgment, which was nothing but the use of that understanding which God gave them, about matters infinitely interesting to themselves. Modern Papists, at least British ones, have of late endeavoured to throw a veil over this part of their church's history; and it has become fashionable, even among them, to condemn persecution for conscience' sake; but here is the organ of our Glasgow Papists laying it down as an incontrovertible principle that his church has the power of punishing men for presuming to think for themselves upon matters which relate to the salvation of their own souls. This is the very essence of persecution for conscience' sake; and we need no more to convince us, that if Papists had power over us, Protestants would be punished by being consigned to infamy and the flames.

There is a great quantity of nonsense in the above extract, which, I think, it is needless to notice, as every intelligent Protestant reader will be able to answer it for himself. What I mean to show by it, is the deep-rooted dislike that Papists have to the Bible, as a book of general instruction, a dislike which they cannot conceal, even when affecting to respect it. They present, therefore, the very reverse of the character of the righteous man, described in the first Psalm, "whose delight is in the law of the Lord, and in his law he meditates day and night." All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and it is so profitable for every Christian purpose, as to make the man of God perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17. perfection Papists practically can know nothing. It is of the very essence of it, to seek to promote the perfection of others; and if the priests had it, they would labour to impart the same blessing to the VOL. II.-44

Of this

people; but by withholding the Bible from them, or by dissuading them from the reading of it, they effectually keep them in an ignorant and carnal state.

CHAPTER CLVIII.

THE APOSTLES HAD NO SUCCESSORS IN THEIR OFFICE. THE REFORMERS INTRODUCED NO NEW DOCTRINE. AND PASTORS AT THE PRESENT DAY ARE COMMANDED TO TEACH ONLY THE OLD DOCTRINE OF THE WAY OF SALVATION BY CHRIST. STORY ABOUT TYPHUS FEVER.

SATURDAY, July 21st, 1821. LET us now attend a little to the subject of apostolic succession. I had maintained, and I maintain still, that the apostles had no successors; meaning, as I distinctly explained my words, that their extraordinary and miraculous powers, as inspired men, were not transferred to others, but terminated with them, personally and respectively. The Vindicator maintains, with the Douay catechism, that every popish priest is a successor of the apostles, and of course possessed of every apostolical power, for this must be implied in the word succession, when used without limitation; for it is a succession as complete as that of George the Fourth to George the Third.

"Against this doctrine," says The Vindicator, "the accuser expressly avers, that the apostles had no successors; but in this statement he is decidedly opposed by the very scriptures, which he makes the rule of his faith. Does not the Bible inform us, that the very first act of the apostles, after the ascension of Christ, and before the descent of the Holy Ghost, was the choice of a successor to fill up the vacancy occasioned by the death of the traitor Judas?" To which I answer, this is partly true; and if the popish priests would limit their claim of succession to that of the apostle Judas, I would not dispute the point with them. But who does not know, that it was a necessary qualification in him who should be chosen to succeed even Judas, that he should have been a personal attendant on Christ's ministry on earth, and a companion of the other apostles, during "all the time that the Lord Jesus went out and in among them; beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from them." Acts i. 21, 22. To this no pastor of any church after the first century could pretend; and of course no one could justly claim to be a successor of the apostles. Paul himself, though not one of Christ's companions, as the other apostles were, rests his title to apostleship upon the fact of his having seen Christ personally, and having received his commission directly from him, and not through the medium of other apostles. 1 Cor. ix. 1. Gal. i. 11—16. Here there is a broad line of distinction drawn between apostles and all other ministers of Christ. An apostle was one who had seen Christ in the flesh, and received commission from Christ's own mouth, and who had received farther, the extraordinary and miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, by which he became an infallible teacher of the truth, and was enabled to confirm the same by miracles and signs from heaven. It is not saidthat these gifts were confined to the twelve, or the thirteen, including Matthias and Paul, for there were seventy whom Christ distinguished among his followers, and commissioned to be preachers of the gospel,