parallel to the case as it stands, between the New Testament and the doctrine of the Church. For instance, after St. Paul has declared some plain truths to the Corinthians, he says, "Be ye followers of me; for this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the LORD, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways, which be in CHRIST, as I teach every where in every Church'." He refers them to an authority beyond and beside his epistle,-to Timothy, nay to his doctrines as he had taught in every Church. If then we can ascertain, for that I here assume, what was that doctrine taught every where in the Church, we have ascertained that to which St. Paul refers us; and if that doctrine, so ascertained, adds many things in detail to what he has written, developes one thing, and gives a different impression of others, it is no more than such a reference might lead us to expect, it is the very thing he prepares us for. It as little, therefore, contradicts what is written, as the books of Chronicles contradict the book of Kings; and if it appears to favour the priesthood more than St. Paul does, this is no more than can be objected to the Chronicles compared with the Kings.

Again, after not teaching, but reminding them about the LORD's Supper, he adds, "the rest will I set in order when I come." When then we find the Church has always considered that Holy Sacrament to be not only a feast or supper, but in its fulness to contain a sacrifice, and to require a certain Liturgical form, how does this contradict the inspired text, which plainly signifies that something else is to come besides what it has said itself? So far from its being strange that the Church brings out and fills up St. Paul's outline, it would be very strange if it did not. Yet it is not unusual to ascribe these additional details to priestcraft, and without proof to call them corruptions and innovations, in the very spirit in which freethinkers have before now attributed the books of Chronicles to the Jewish priests, and accused them of bigotry and intolerance.

It is remarkable how frequent are the allusions in the Epistles

11 Cor. iv. 17.

to other Apostolic teaching beyond themselves, i. e. besides the written authority. For instance; in the same chapter, "I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions, as I delivered them to you." Again, "I have also received," or had by tradition, "of the LORD that which also I delivered unto you," that is, which I gave by tradition unto you. This giving and receiving was not in writing. Again, "If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of GoD:" he appeals to the received custom of the Church. Again, "I declare unto you the Gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand, . . . . . for I delivered unto you (gave by tradition) first of all that which I also received" (by tradition). Again, "Stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle 1." Such passages prove, as all will grant, that, at the time there were means of knowledge distinct from Scripture, and containing information in addition to it. When, then, we actually do find in the existing Church system of those times, as historically recorded, such additional information, that information may be Apostolic or it may be not; but however this is, the mere circumstance that it is in addition, is no proof against its being Apostolic; that it is extra-scriptural is no proof that it is unscriptural, for St. Paul himself tells us in Scripture, that there are truths not in Scripture. And we may as fairly object to the books of Chronicles, that they are an addition to the books of Kings. In saying this, I am not entering into the question which lies between us and the Romanists, whether these further truths are substantive additions or developments, whether in faith or in conduct and discipline.

Further the Chronicles pass over David's great sin, and Solomon's fall; and they insert Manasseh's repentance. The account of Manasseh's reign is given at length in the second book of Kings; it is too long of course to cite, but the following are some of its particulars. Manasseh "used enchantments and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards;" he "seduced them to do more evil than did the nations whom the LORD destroyed before the

II Cor. xi. 2. 16. 23; xv. 1-3, 2 Thess. ii. 15.

2 2 Kings xxi.

children of Israel."

"Moreover Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another." Afterwards, when Josiah had made his reforms, the sacred writer adds, "Notwithstanding the LORD turned not from the fierceness of His great wrath, wherewith His anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal." And again in Jehoiakim's time 2, "Surely, at the commandment of the LORD came this upon Judah, to remove them out of His sight for the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he did; and also for the innocent blood that he shed; for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, which the Lord would not pardon." And again in the book of Jeremiah3, "I will cause them to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth, because of Manasseh, the son of Hezekiah king of Judah, for that which he did in Jerusalem." Who would conjecture with such passages of Scripture before him, that Manasseh repented before his death, and was forgiven? but to complete the illusion, (as it may be called,) the account of his reign in the book of Kings ends thus:- "Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and all that he did, and his sin that he sinned, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?" not a word about his repentance. Might it not then be plausibly argued that the books of Kings precisely limited and defined what the Chronicles were to relate, "the sin that he sinned;" that this was to be the theme of the history, its outline and ground plan, and that their absolute silence about his repentance was a cogent, positive argument that he did not repent? How little do they prepare one for the following most affecting record of him? "When he was in affliction, he besought the LORD his GOD, and humbled himself greatly before the GoD of his fathers, and prayed unto Him. And He was entreated of him, and heard his supplication, and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD He was GOD.

.. And he took away the strange gods, and the idol out of the house of the LORD, and the altars that he had built in the mount of the house of the LORD, and in Jerusalem, and cast them

12 Kings xxiii. 26.

2 2 Kings xxiv. 3, 4.

3 Jer. xv. 4. 4 2 Kings xxi.

out of the city, &c.

Now the rest of the acts of Manas

seh, and his prayer unto his GOD, and the words of the seers that spake to him in the name of the LORD GOD of Israel, behold they are written in the book of the kings of Israel. So Manasseh slept with his fathers '." If then the books of Kings were the only canonical account, and the books of Chronicles part of the Apocrypha, would not the latter be pronounced an unscriptural record, a legend and a tradition of men, not because the evidence for their truth was not sufficient, but as if they contradicted the books of Kings? at least, is not this what is done as regards the Church system of doctrine, as if it must be at variance with the New Testament, because it views the Gospel from a somewhat distinct point of view, and in a distinct light?

Again the account given of Jehoash in the Kings is as follows:-"Jehoash did that which was right in the sight of the LORD all his days, wherein Jehoiada the priest instructed him." And it ends thus, "His servants arose and made a conspiracy, and slew Joash in the house of Millo:" there is no hint of any great defection or miserable ingratitude on his part, though, as it turns out on referring to Chronicles, the words "all his days, wherein," &c. are significant. In the Chronicles we learn that after good Jehoiada's death, whose wife had saved him from Athaliah, and who preserved for him his throne, he went and served groves and idols, and killed Zechariah the son of Jehoiada when he was raised up by the Spirit of God to protest. Judgments followed,-the Syrians, and then "great diseases," and then assassination. Now, if the apparently simple words, "all the days wherein," &c. are emphatic, why may not our Saviour's words, "If thou bring thy gifts to the altar," be emphatic, or "If thou wouldst be perfect," suggest a doctrine which it does not exhibit?

Now let us proceed to the Gospels; a few instances must suffice.

Considering how great a miracle the raising of Lazarus is in itself, and how connected with our LORD's death, how is it that the three first Gospels do not mention it? They speak of the

1 2 Chron. xxxiii. 12-20.

2 2 Kings xii.

chief priests taking counsel to put him to death, but give no reason; rather they seem to assign other reasons, as the parables He spoke against them'. At length St. John mentions the miracle and its consequences. Things important then may be true, though particular inspired documents do not mention them. As the raising of Lazarus is true, though not contained at all in the first three Gospels, so the gift of consecrating the Eucharist may have been committed by CHRIST to the priesthood, though only indirectly taught in any of the four. Will you say, I am arguing against our own Church, which says that Scripture "contains all things necessary to be believed to salvation?" Doubtless, Scripture contains all things necessary to be believed; but there may be things contained which are not on the surface, and things which belong to the ritual and not to belief. Points of faith may lie under the surface, points of observance need not be in Scripture at all. The consecrating power is a point of ritual, yet it is indirectly taught in Scripture, though not brought out, when CHRIST said, "Do this," for He spake to the Apostles who were priests, not to His disciples generally.

Again I just now mentioned the apparent repetition in Genesis of the account of Abraham's denying his wife; a remark which applies to the parallel miracles which occur in the histories of Elijah and Elisha, as the raising of the dead child and the multiplication of the oil. Were only one of the parallel instances in Scripture, we should certainly call the other a corruption or distorted account; and not without some show of reason, till other and better reasons were brought. And in like manner as regards the Gospels, did the account of the feeding of the 4000 with seven loaves rest on the testimony of Antiquity, most of us would have said, "You see how little you can trust the fathers; it was not 4000 with seven loaves, but 5000 with five." Again, should we not have pronounced that the discourses in Luke vi. xi. and xii., if they came to us through the fathers, were the same only in a corrupt form as the Sermon on the Mount in Matt. v. vii. and as xxiii.? Nay, we should have seized, for instance, on Luke xi. 41, "But rather give alms of such things

1 Matt. xxi. 45.