sacred narrative. The second account, which is an expansion of the first, is in the letter opposed to it. Now supposing the narrative contained in the second chapter was not in Scripture, but was the received Church account of man's creation, it is plain not only would it not be in, but it could not even be gathered or proved from the first chapter; which makes the argument all the stronger. Evidently not a pretence could be made of proving from the first chapter the account of the dressing the garden, the naming the brutes, the sleep, and the creation of Eve from a rib. And most persons in this day would certainly have disbelieved it. Why? Because it wanted authority? No. There would be some sense in such a line of argument, but they would not go into the question of authority. Whether or not it had Catholic tradition in its favour, whether Catholic tradition were or were not a sufficient guarantee of its truth, would not even enter into their minds; they would not go so far, they would disbelieve it at once on two grounds: first, they would say Scripture was silent about it, nay, that it contradicted it, that it spoke of man and woman being created both together on the sixth day; and, secondly, they would say it was incongruous and highly improbable, and that the account of Adam's rib sounded like an idle tradition. If (I say) they set it aside for want of evidence of its truth, that is a fair ground; but I repeat, their reason for setting it aside (can it be doubted?) would be, that it was inconsistent with Scripture in actual statement, and unlike it in tone. But it is in Scripture. It seems then that a statement may seem at variance with a certain passage of Scripture, may bear an improbable exterior, and yet come from GOD. Is it so strange, so contrary to the Scripture account of the institution, that the LORD's Supper should be a sacrifice, as it is inconsistent with the first of Genesis, and antecedently improbable, that the second chapter also should be true? No one ever professed to deduce the second chapter from the first all Anglo-Catholics profess to prove the sacrificial character of the LORD's Supper from Scripture. Thus the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is not unscriptural, unless the book of Genesis is (what is impossible, GOD forbid!) selfcontradictory.

Again, take the following account, in the beginning of the fifth

chapter of Genesis, and say whether, if this only had come down to us, we should not, with our present notions, have utterly disallowed the account of Eve's creation, the temptation, the fall, and the history of Cain and Abel:-"This is the book of the generation of Adam. In the day that GoD created man, in the likeness of GOD created He him; male and female created He them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image, and called his name Seth." If the contrast between God's image and Adam's image be insisted on, then I would have it observed, how indirect and concealed it is.

Again I believe I am right in saying that we are nowhere told in Scripture, certainly not in the Old Testament, that the Serpent that tempted Eve was the Devil. The nearest approach to an intimation of it is the last book of the Bible, where the devil is called "that old serpent." Can we be surprised that other truths are but obscurely conveyed in Scripture, when this hardly escapes (as I may say) omission?

ness.

Again we have two accounts of Abraham's denying his wife; also, one instance of Isaac being betrayed into the same weakNow supposing we had only one or two of these in Scripture, and the remaining by tradition, should we not have utterly rejected the latter as a perverted account? On the one hand, we should have said it was inconceivable that two such passages should occur in Abraham's life; or, on the other, that it was most unlikely that both Abraham and Isaac should have gone to Gerar, in the time of a king of the same name, Abimelech. Yet because St. James says, "Confess your faults one to another," if we read that in the early Church there was an usage of secret confession made to the priest, we are apt to consider this latter practice, which our Communion Service recognizes, as a mere perversion or corruption of the Scripture command, and that the words of St. James are a positive argument against it.

In Deuteronomy we read that Moses fasted for forty days in the Mount, twice; in Exodus only one fast is mentioned. Now supposing Deuteronomy were not Scripture, but merely part of the Prayer Book, should we not say it was in this instance evi

dently mistaken? This is what men do as regards Episcopacy. Deacons are spoken of by St. Paul in his Epistles to Timothy and Titus, and Bishops; but no third order in direct and express terms. The Church considers that there are two kinds of Bishops, or, as the word signifies, overseers; those who have the oversight of single parishes, or priests, and those who have the oversight of many together, or what are now specially called Bishops. People say, "Here is a contradiction to Scripture, which speaks of two orders, not of three." Yes, just as really a contradiction as the chapter in Deuteronomy is of the chapter in Exodus. But this again is to take far lower ground than we need; for we all contend that Episcopacy, even granting it is an addition to some passages of Scripture, yet is in accordance with others.

Again in the history of Balaam we read, "GoD came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men come to call thee, rise up and go with them; but yet the word which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou speak '." Presently we read, " And GOD's anger was kindled, because he went; and the Angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him." Now supposing the former circumstance (the permission given him to go) was not in Scripture, but was only the received belief of the Church, would it not be at once rejected by most men as inconsistent with Scripture? And supposing a Churchman were to entreat objectors to consider the strong evidence in Catholic tradition for its truth, would not the answer be, "Do not tell us of evidence; we cannot give you a hearing; your statement is in plain contradiction to the inspired text, which says that God's anger was kindled. How then can He have told Balaam to go with the men? The matter stands to reason; we leave it to the private judgment of any unbiassed person. Sophistry indeed may try to reconcile the tradition with Scripture; but after all you are unscriptural, and we uphold the pure word of truth without glosses and refinements." Now, is not this just what is done in matters of doctrine? Thus, because our LORD repre

1 Numb. xxii. 20.

sents the Father saying, in the parable of the Prodigal Son, "Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet '," it is argued that this is inconsistent with the Church's usage, even supposing for argument's sake it has no Scripture sanction, of penance for sin.

Again: the book of Deuteronomy, being a recapitulation of the foregoing Books, in an address to the Israelites, is in the position of the Apostolic Epistles. Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers being a very orderly and systematic account, are somewhat in the position of Catholic tradition. Now Deuteronomy differs in some minute points from the former books. For example: in Exodus, the fourth commandment contains a reference to the creation of the world on the seventh day, as the reason of the institution of the Sabbath in Deuteronomy, the same commandment refers it to the deliverance of the Israelites out of Egypt on that day. Supposing we had only the latter statement in Scripture, and supposing the former to be only the received doctrine of the Church, would not this former, that is, the statement contained in Exodus, that the Sabbatical rest was in memory of God's resting after the Creation, have seemed at once fanciful and unfounded? Would it not have been said, 66 Why do you have recourse to the mysticism of types? here is a plain intelligible reason for keeping the Sabbath holy, viz. the deliverance from Egypt. Be content with this:-besides, your view is grossly carnal and anthropomorphic. How can ALMIGHTY GOD be said to rest? And it is unscriptural; for CHRIST says, "My FATHER worketh hitherto, and I work." Now is it not a similar procedure to argue, that since the Holy Eucharist is a "communication of the body and blood of CHRIST," therefore it is not also a mysterious representation of His meritorious sacrifice in the sight of ALMIGHTY GOD?

Again the Books of Samuel and Kings, compared with those of Chronicles, would supply many instances in point, of which I select a few. For instance :

In 2 Kings xv. we read of the reign of Azariah, or Uzziah, king of

Luke xv. 22.

Judah. It is said, "he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father Amaziah had done;" and then that "the LORD smote the king, so that he was a leper unto the day of his death;" and we are referred for "the rest of the acts of Azariah, and all that he did," to "the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah." We turn to the Chronicles and find an account of the cause of the visitation which came upon him. "When he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction; for he transgressed against the LORD his GOD, and went into the temple of the LORD to burn incense upon the altar of incense. And Azariah the priest went in after him, and with him fourscore priests of the LORD that were valiant men. And they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him, It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the LORD, but to the priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the sanctuary, for thou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for thine honour from the LORD GOD. Then Uzziah was wroth, and had a censer in his hand to burn incense; and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy even rose up in his forehead before the priests in the house of the LORD, from beside the incense altar. And Azariah, the chief priest, and all the priests, looked upon him, and, behold, he was leprous in his forehead, and they thrust him out from thence; yea, himself hasted also to go out, because the LORD had smitten him. And Uzziah the king was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house, being a leper 1."

Now nothing can be more natural than this joint narrative. The one is brief, but refers to the other for the details; and the other gives them. Suppose, then, a captious mind were to dwell upon the remarkable silence of the former,-magnify it as an objection,—and on the other hand should allude to the tendency of the second narrative to uphold the priesthood, and should attribute it to such a design. Should we think such an argument valid, or merely ingenious, clever, amusing, yet not trustworthy? I suppose the latter; yet this instance is very near a

1 2 Chron. xxvi, 16–21.