in his house? If, when he understood nothing of what he was reading, he still could not give up reading, much less would he after he had learned. For, in proof that he did not understand what he was reading, hear what Philip saith unto him: "Understandest thou what thou readest?" And he, upon hearing this, did not blush nor feel ashamed, but confessed his ignorance, and says: "How can I, unless some man should guide me?" Since, then, when he had not a guide, he was occupied even so in reading, he therefore speedily met with one to take him by the hand. God saw his earnestness, accepted his diligence, and straightway sent him a teacher.

'But there is no Philip here now. Aye, but the Spirit that influenced Philip is here. Let us not trifle, beloved, with our salvation. All these things were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Great is the security against sin which the reading of the Scriptures furnishes. Great is the precipice and deep the gulf that opens before ignorance of the Scriptures. It is downright abandonment of salvation to be ignorant of the Divine laws. It is this that has caused heresies: it is this that has led to profligate living: it is this that has turned things upside down; for it is impossible for anyone to come off without profit who constantly enjoys such reading with intelligence.'

I dare say that will strike you as good Protestant preaching, and you will be curious to hear what Roman Catholic advocates have to say in reply. Well, what they answer is, that Chrysostom only recommends what they call the ascetic use of the Scriptures, or, as we should say, their use for practical edification and instruction of life. I readily grant that this was the object Chrysostom appears to have had primarily in view in most of the sermons I have quoted, and I will, into the bargain, throw in the concession that Chrysostom would have been very sorry if his hearers had put any heretical meaning on what they read. But all this is beside the question we are considering, namely, Was the ancient Church afraid of their laity reading the Bible, or did

they not, on the contrary, recommend and urge them to read it? Suppose the question was whether calomel ought to be prescribed in a certain disease, and that a doctor who thought its use highly dangerous was pressed with the example of some great authority who had always prescribed it. Suppose, after denying this for some time, he had prescription after prescription shown to him, in which calomel had been employed, what would you think of the answer, 'Oh, he only prescribed calomel for its purgative properties; he did not intend the drug to operate in any other way'? Surely, it is common sense that, if you administer a drug, you cannot prevent it from exercising all its properties. If you let people read the Bible, you cannot prevent them from reflecting on what they read. Suppose, for an example, a Roman Catholic reads the Bible; how can you be sure that he will not take notice himself, or have it pointed out to him, that, whereas Pius IX. could not write a single Encyclical in which the name of the Virgin Mary did not occupy a prominent place, we have in the Bible twenty-one Apostolic letters, and her name does not occur in one of them? The Church of Rome has very good reason to discourage Bible reading by their people; for some of them are very likely to be struck by the fact that the system of the New Testament is very unlike that of modern Romanism. The ancient Church had no such fear. They never desired to teach anything that was not in the Bible; and so they were not afraid of the people discovering contradictions between the Bible and their teaching.

Now, I do not want any quotations I may read to you to mislead you into thinking that the Fathers of the fourth century were English Protestants of the nineteenth. I suppose there is not one of them to whose opinions on all points we should like to pledge ourselves. But such quotations as I have read show that they thoroughly agree with us on fundamental principles. Where they differ from us they differ as men do who, starting from the same principles, work them out in some respects differently. In such a case there is hope of agreement, if each revise carefully the pro

But

cess of deduction from the principles held in common. our conclusions differ from those of the Church of Rome, because we start from different principles, and pursue a different method. The difference will be the subject of the next Lecture.*

I did not trouble myself to give formal proof of the discouragement of Bible reading by the modern Church of Rome, because I considered that, as I have said above, if her theory be true, her practice is quite right. But as her advocates are now often apt to be ashamed of this practice, I copy the conditions under which, according to the fourth Rule of the Congregation of the Index of Prohibited Works, the exceptional favour of being allowed to read the Bible may be granted :-'Since it is manifest by experience that if the Holy Bible in the vulgar tongue be suffered to be read everywhere without distinction, more evil than good arises, let the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor be abided by in this respect; so that, after consulting with the parish priest or the confessor, they may grant permission to read translations of the Scriptures made by Catholic writers, to those whom they understand to be able to receive no harm, but an increase of faith and piety from such reading: which faculty let them have in writing. But whosoever shall presume to read these Bibles,. or have them in possession without such faculty, shall not be capable of receiving absolution of their sins, unless they have first given up the Bibles to the ordinary.'See Littledale's Plain Reasons, p. 90. But it is needless to produce documentary evidence to anyone who knows the small circulation of the Scriptures in Roman Catholic countries; and, even in this country, the small knowledge of the Bible possessed by Roman Catholics in other respects well educated.

VIII.

IF

THE CHURCH'S SOURCES OF PROOF.

F we admit it as established that the Church is bound to give proofs of her doctrines, the next point in the controversy is what sources of proof are admissible. I think it was Dr. Hawkins, the late Provost of Oriel, who summed up our doctrine on this subject in the formula, The Church to teach, the Scriptures to prove.

The Church of England, in her Sixth Article, has laid down the principle of her method in the assertion that 'Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation,' so that whatever is incapable of Scripture proof, even if it may happen to be true, is not to be required of any man to be believed as an article of faith. A profession of belief in this principle of the sufficiency of Scripture is one of the pledges which our Church requires of every priest at his ordination. Nor is this principle merely asserted in one of the Articles; it runs through them all. Everything else, which might claim an independent authority, is made in the Articles to derive its authority from the Bible, and to be authoritative only so far as it agrees with the Bible. The most venerable of all traditions-the Creedsare said (Art. VIII.) to be received only because capable of Scripture proof. Every particular Church, and General Councils of the Church, are said (Arts. XIX.-XXI.) to be liable to error; and their decisions are said to be binding only when it can be shown that they are taken out of Holy Scripture. Then, in the controversial Articles, one Roman doctrine after another is rejected as a human invention, because grounded upon no warrant of Holy Scripture. Thus you will see that the Sixth Article is not an isolated doctrine, but states the

principle of the method which our Church employs in the establishment of all her doctrines.

Now, the Council of Trent, at the outset of its proceedings, equally proclaimed the principle of its method, in order (as it said) that all men might understand in what order and method this Synod is about to proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it chiefly intends to use for the information of doctrine and the establishment of morals in the Church.' The actual words of the decree of the Council of Trent are easily accessible to you, and I shall expect you to know them; suffice it here to remind you that its principle is, that the saving truth, communicated by Christ and His Apostles, is contained in the written books and in unwritten traditions, and that equal piety and reverence is to be given to the books of the Bible and to those traditions.

As Bellarmine states the matter, the rule of faith is the Word of God; but that Word may be either written or unwrit ten. When we say unwritten, we do not mean that it is nowhere written, but only that it was not written down by its first announcers. To the first generation of Christians, the Gospel revelation was equally authoritative, whether it was announced to them by the Apostles' spoken words or by their written letters; and so to every succeeding generation it makes no difference whether the Word of God which comes to them be written or unwritten.

In passing, I may just point out the transparent fallacy in this oft-repeated argument. Of course, if you certainly know a communication to be the Word of God, your obligation to receive it is all the same, no matter how it came to you; but the manner in which it comes may make all the difference in the world, as to your power of knowing whether it be the Word of God or not. The early Christians, who received letters bearing the autographs of Peter or Paul, were not a whit more sure that they had got an apostolic communication than those who, with their own ears, heard the Apostles speak; no doubt, rather less so of the two; but it is surely perfectly ludicrous to argue that, because the Apostles' spoken words were as good a means of knowing their sentiments as their written