And to give the reader another specimen of Gennadius's "doctrines of the Church," we may add, that the doctrine which next precedes this in his list is as follows;— "To equal the married state with virginity vowed to God, or to believe that no merit accrues to those who abstain from wine or flesh for the sake of mortifying the body, this is not the characteristic of a Christian, but of Jovinian." 1

Thus, between the times of Clement of Alexandria and Augustine, there was a complete revolution in opinion respecting this matter, for at the former period no one dreamed of making it a point of importance, and the majority did not receive it, while at the latter it was heresy to doubt it. Woe to the "blasphemer" who presumed not to believe it.

Alas! that they whose great names had such influence in the Church, instead of adding fuel to the fire of such an unprofitable controversy, imitating their opponents in making their own private views points of faith, should not rather have silenced it altogether, as a vain and idle dispute about a matter with which religion had no concern. Yes, may we not regret with Epiphanius, that men should" turn aside from necessary points, those that concern the truth of the faith, and those that tend to the glory of God, to heap to themselves things that tend to their hurt, from wherever they can find them." "Alas," we say with him, "that the matter should be agitated, particularly when the Scripture [as our opponents admit] does not speak of it. For if the Scripture had mentioned it, we should have embraced the truth without hesitation;" but we add, in the words of Jerome, "we make it not a point of belief, because we read it not."

The reader may, I fear, think that we have dwelt upon this matter too long. But as our opponents have put it forward as a point of importance, and as it is one re

Sacratæ Deo virginitati nuptias coæquare, aut pro amore castigandi corporis abstinentibus a vino vel carnibus nihil credere meriti accrescere, nec hoc Christiani sed Joviniani est. ID. ib. c. 35.

markably illustrative of our subject, we were desirous of placing its history clearly before him, heartily as we could have wished, for the honour of the Church of Christ, that such a matter had never been the subject of discussion among her members.

Before I conclude this chapter, there are two objections, often urged by the Romanists, which I will anticipate.

It is said (as we have already remarked 1) that, according to our system, our rule of faith is not the same as that of the primitive Christians, for that they must have had information from the Apostles which we, by discarding "tradition," are rejecting.

I reply, that in one sense our rule of faith is the same, viz. the whole of that which we have good reason for acknowledging as divine revelation; and that in the sense in which it is not the same, namely, in actual extent, that of our opponents is also not the same; for, to give an example, St. Paul tells the Thessalonians, that he had informed them what it was that withheld the appearance of the man of sin, but the Romanists themselves will not pretend to say that Church tradition has delivered this down to us. And there are many other things about which we are equally in the dark, respecting which, nevertheless, we can have little doubt that the first Christians received some information from the Apostles.

And a similar answer holds good with respect to another objection.

It is sometimes said that Scripture cannot be the entire rule of faith, because some inspired books have perished.

To this, indeed, we reply, first, that we deny the fact, and challenge those who maintain it to give any proof that any books ever held to be part of the canon of Scripture have perished.2

1 See vol. i. p. 533.

2 This is an objection of Bellarmine, to whose remarks we may find a reply in one of his own communion, viz. Stapleton. See his De Princip. lib. ix. c. 5; and De auct. Script. adv. Whitak. lib. ii. c. 1. § 7.

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 preserve 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 pos

sess.

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 for 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