X.

THE RULE OF FAITH.

HOLY SCRIPTURE,' or THE CHURCH.'

We are now to return to the main question, and once more to compare the two opposing principles,-that of the Protestants, that SCRIPTURE is the only rule of faith; and that of the Romanists, that God has appointed his CHURCH the infallible and unfailing depository of all truth.'1

The Protestant rule having been briefly explained at the close of the last Essay, it will be advisable here to examine closely the difficulties pointed out, especially by Dr. Wiseman, in the practical application of that rule.

We may begin with an observation of the Doctor's, that Protestantism, from its very fundamental principle, demands of its disciples a course of study and investigation, which, to by far the larger proportion of mankind, is absolutely impossible. He observes'The fundamental principle of Protestantism is

'Wiseman's First Lecture, p. 10.

this, that THE WORD OF GOD ALONE IS THE TRUE STANDARD AND RULE OF FAITH. But, to arrive at this, there is a long course of complicated and severe inquiry. You must, step by step, have satisfied yourselves, not merely of the existence of a revelation; but, that such revelation is really confided to man in these very books; that they have been transmitted to you in such a state, that the originals have been so preserved, and the translations so made, as that you are confident, that in reading them you are reading those words which the Spirit of God dictated to the prophets and apostles; and, still more, that you have acquired, or that you possess, the lights necessary for you to understand them. You must not only be satisfied that the Bible has been given as the word of God, but you must be ready to meet the innumerable and complicated difficulties which are brought by others against the inspiration of particular books, or individual passages; so that you may be able to say, that from your own knowledge and experience, you are internally convinced, that you have in that book the inspired word of God, in the first place; and, in the second, that you are not only authorized, but competent, to understand it. How few, my brethren, are there who can say, that they have gone through this important course; and, yet, it is the essential ground of Protestantism, that each one is to be considered responsible to God for every particular doctrine which he professes-that each one must have studied the word of God, and must have drawn from it the faith which he holds. Unless he does all this, he has not complied with those conditions which his religion imposes upon him; and, whatever reasons or motives he may feel

or quote for being a Protestant, it is manifest that they noways lead him essentially to the practical adoption of the ground-work of his religion.' 1

Now the learned Doctor has here availed himself of his rhetorical skill to conjure up difficulties and obstacles which have no real existence, or which, at least, have no peculiar existence in the Protestant system. For what does this objection amount to, when closely scrutinized? As applied to the present question, the point laboured at by the Doctor, seems to be this, that no one can be a sound Protestant, without a long and painful course of study;—that this is a necessary condition of our system, and that as this is plainly impossible to the great bulk of mankind, therefore Protestantism cannot be that religion which God has given for the comfort and support of all. Now this may be answered by a simple recurrence to experience. There is no practical difference in this respect between the two systems. The bulk of mankind must, and in fact always do, receive the first principles of their religion, implicitly, or upon credence. The Protestant teachers and theologians present to the people a book, the Bible, and tell them, what they themselves believe, that it is the inspired word of God, and the only foundation upon which their religious belief can be safely built. Thousands and millions accept their assurance; repose their faith in this book; either omitting or being incapable of the preliminary inquiry, How this book can be proved to be God's word; but finding it to be, in their own experience, 'the power of God to their salvation,' they thank

1 Wiseman's First Lecture, p. 8, 9.

fully accept it, cordially attach themselves to it, refuse all other rules, and all additions to this rule, and finally die, trusting in the testimony which this book gives to Christ, and resting their souls with confidence on Him. Now these are genuine Protestants, inasmuch as they receive and adopt the great Protestant principle, as Dr. Wiseman himself expresses it, of THE Word of God alone, the TRUE STANDARD AND RULE OF FAITH.' And, in the implicit or unphilosophical mode of their adherence to their religious belief, they are obviously on a par, and really far more justifiable than the multitudes who adopt the Romish rule; the CHURCH,-without any more investigation into the real grounds of their reliance than the aforesaid Protestants. The one class receive the bread of life,' not always rationally or on philosophical data; but experience soon sets them fully right. They are soon in the predicament of the Samaritans, who told their towns-woman, now we believe, not because of thy saying; for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world." John iv. 42. The gospel comes to them in power and in much assurance;' and they know with the best sort of certainty, that it is bread indeed that they have received, by the spiritual sustentation which their souls have derived from it. Nor is their reception of God's word altogether implicit and unreasoning. Few Protestant pastors entirely omit occasional explanations of the external evidences for the scriptures. They frequently appeal to the common sense of their people, by proofs which are level to all orders of intellect. And, amidst all, there is the inherent glory of the word itself, declar

66

ing, as plainly and undeniably as the sun itself, that it is none other than the work of God.

The followers of Rome, on the other hand, adopt just as implicitly the faith proposed to them, and rest their all upon the foundation of ‘THE CHURCH;' not knowing, in fact, what the church' is in which they believe; while, instead of after-assurance, derived from the experience of their own souls, they find nothing better than the false repose of delusion.

This it may be said, is an assumption of that which has yet to be proved. But we were led into this by Dr. Wiseman's own equally illegitimate claim. He denies the right of any one to the name of Protestant, until he has first investigated the whole system of external evidence. We maintain, on the other hand, that the poor man who merely accepts the Bible as it is presented to him, clinging to it alone for his spiritual hopes, and refusing any other rule or guide, is, in so doing, a genuine Protestant. We further add, that the great bulk, both of Protestants and Papists, must of necessity take their religious system very much on the testimony of others; the great difference, however, consisting in this, that the Protestant, resting upon the simple WORD of God, cannot be mistaken or misled in the security of his foundation, while the Romanist not only takes his system quite as much upon trust as the most ignorant Protestant, but falls into the fatal error of resting his hopes on a merely human, and therefore unsafe foundation. This, however, is the chief point which we shall have to establish in the course of the present argument. Let us now consider the reasons assigned by Dr. Wiseman for refusing the holy scriptures as a sole and sufficient rule of faith.