do we receive the Epistle to Philemon as St. Paul's, and not the Commemorations for the faithful departed as Apostolical also? Ever after indeed the times I mention, the Epistle to Philemon was accounted St. Paul's, and so ever after the same time the Commemorations spoken of are acknowledged on all hands to have been observed as a religious duty, down to three hundred years ago. If it be said that from historical records we have good reasons for thinking that the Epistle of St. Paul to Philemon, with his other Epistles, were read from time immemorial in Church, which is a witness independent of particular testimonies in the Fathers, I answer, no evidence can be more satisfactory and conclusive to a well-judging mind; but then it is a moral evidence, resting on very little formal and producible proof; and quite as much evidence can be given for the solemn Commemorations of the Dead in the Holy Eucharist which I speak of. They too were in use in the Church from time immemorial. Persons, then, who have the heart to give up and annul the Ordinance, will not, if they are consistent, scruple much at the Epistle. If in the sixteenth century the innovators on religion had struck the Epistle to Philemon out of Scripture, they would have had just as much right to do it as to abolish these Commemorations; and those who wish to defend such innovation, would have had just as much to say in its behalf. If it be said they found nothing on the subject of such Commemorations in Scripture, even granting this for argument's sake, yet I wonder where they found in Scripture that the Epistle to Philemon was written by St. Paul, except indeed in the Epistle itself. No where; yet they kept the one, they abolished the other, as far, that is, as human tyranny could abolish it. Let us be thankful that they did not also say, "The Epistle to Philemon is of a private nature, and has no marks of inspiration about it. It is not mentioned by name or quoted by any writer till Origen, who flourished at a time when mistakes had begun, in the third century, and who actually thinks St. Barnabas wrote the Epistle which goes under his name; and he too, after all, just mentions it once, but not as inspired or canonical, and elsewhere happens to speak of St. Paul's fourteen Epistles. In the

beginning of the fourth century, Eusebius, without any where naming it" (as far as I can discover), "also speaks of fourteen Epistles, and speaks of a writer one hundred years earlier, who in like manner enumerated thirteen besides the Hebrews. All this is very unsatisfactory. We will have nothing but the pure word of God; we will only admit what has the clearest proof. It is impossible that God should require us to believe a book to come from Him, without authenticating it with the highest and most cogent evidence."

nance.

Again the early Church with one voice testifies in favour of Episcopacy, as an ordinance especially pleasing to GOD. Ignatius, the very disciple of the Apostles, speaks in the clearest and strongest terms; and those who follow fully corroborate his statements for three or four hundred years. And besides this, we know the fact, that a succession of Bishops from the Apostles did exist in all the Churches all that time. At the end of that time one Father, St. Jerome, in writing controversially, has some strong expressions against the divine origin of the ordiAnd this is all that can be said in favour of any other regimen. Now, on the other hand, what is the case as regards the Epistle to the Hebrews? Though received in the East, it was not received in the Latin Churches, till that same St. Jerome's time. St. Irenæus either does not affirm, or denies that it is St. Paul's. Tertullian ascribes it to St. Barnabas. Caius excluded it from his list. St. Hippolytus does not receive it. St. Cyprian is silent about it. It is doubtful whether St. Optatus received it. Now, that this important Epistle is part of the inspired word of GOD, there is no doubt. But why? Because the testimony of the fourth and fifth centuries, when Christians were at leisure to examine the question thoroughly, is altogether in its favour. I know of no other reason, and I consider this to be quite sufficient but with what consistency do persons receive this Epistle as inspired, yet deny that Episcopacy is a divinely ordained means of grace?

Again the Epistles to the Thessalonians are quoted by six writers in the first two hundred years from St. John's death; first, at the end of the first hundred, by three Fathers, Irenæus,

Clement, and Tertullian; and are by implication acknowledged in the last work of Caius, at the same time, and are in Origen's list some years after. On the other hand, the LORD's table is always called an Altar, and is called a Table only in one single passage of a single Father, during the first three centuries. It is called Altar in four out of the seven Epistles of St. Ignatius. It is called Altar by St. Clement of Rome, by St. Irenæus, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Origen, Eusebius, St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Optatus, St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, and St. Austin'. It is once called Table by St. Dionysius of Alexandria. (Johnson's U. S. vol. i. p. 306.) I do not know on what ground we admit the Epistles to the Thessalonians to be the writing of St. Paul, yet deny that the use of Altars is Apostolic.

Again that the LORD's Supper is a Sacrifice is declared or implied by St. Clement of Rome, St. Paul's companion, by St. Justin, by St. Irenæus, by Tertullian, by St. Cyprian, and others. On the other hand, the Acts of the Apostles are perhaps alluded to by St. Polycarp, and first distinctly noticed by St. Irenæus, then by three writers who came soon after (St. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and the Letter from the Church of Lyons), and then not till the end of the two hundred years from St. John's death. Which has the best evidence, the Book of Acts, or the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice?

1 It is perhaps unnecessary to say that the sense of the word Altar (voiaσrýρtov) in some of these passages has been contested; as has it been contested whether the Fathers' works are genuine, or the Books of Scripture genuine, or its text free from interpolations. There is no one spot in the territory of theology but has been the scene of a battle. Any thing has been ventured and believed in the heat of controversy; and the ultimate appeal in such cases is the common sense of mankind. Ignatius says, σπουδάσετε οὖν μιᾷ εὐχαριστίᾳ χρῆσθαι· μία γὰρ σὰρξ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἓν ποτήριον εἰς ἕνωσιν τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ· ἓν θυσιαστήριον, ὡς εἷς ἐπίσκοπος, ἅμα τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ καὶ διακόνοις τοῖς συνδούλοις μου, ἵνα ὃ ἐὰν πρᾶσσητε κатà Оεдν πрάoonre. Ad Phil. 4. Would it have entered into any one's mind, were it not for the necessities of his theory, to take evxapıoría, σàp, ποτήριον, αἷμα, ἐπίσκοπος, πρεσβυτέριον, διάκονος, in their ecclesiastical meaning, as belonging to the visible Church, and the one word voiαorýρiov figuratively?

:

Again much stress, as I have said, is laid by objectors on the fact that there is so little evidence concerning Catholic doctrine in the first years of Christianity. Now, how does this. stand, as regards the Canon of the New Testament? The New Testament consists of twenty-seven books in all, though of varying importance. Of these, fourteen are not mentioned at all till from eighty to one hundred years after St. John's death, in which number are the Acts, the Second to the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Colossians, the Two to the Thessalonians, and St. James. Of the other thirteen, five, viz. St. John's Gospel, the Philippians, the First of Timothy, the Hebrews, and the First of John, are quoted but by one writer during the same period.

Lastly, St. Irenæus, at the close of the second century, quotes all the books of the New Testament but five, and deservedly stands very high as a witness. Now, why may not so learned and holy a man, and so close on the Apostles, stand also as a witness of some doctrines which he takes for granted, as the invisible but real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, the use of Catholic tradition in gaining the truth, and the powers committed to the Church?

I do not see then, if men will indulge that eclectic spirit which chooses part and rejects part of the primitive Church system, what is to keep them from choosing part, and rejecting part of the Canon of Scripture.

But again it is objected that the evidence of the Church doctrines, whether from Scripture or from Antiquity, is not clear or complete. Now, as far as the question of Scripture is concerned, this point has been already considered at length. The immethodical character of the evidence has been granted, and accounted for. This being the case then, it may be used to protect the proof from Antiquity, as far as it also is immethodical and incomplete. If the Fathers contradict each other in words, so do passages of Scripture contradict each other. Against the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity may be brought the text, "Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the Angels which are in heaven, neither the SON, but the FATHER'." And

1 Mark xiii. 32.

against the doctrine of faith justifying, St. James's declaration, "that works justify."

But this is not all: the objection about the uncertainty of the Fathers, which subserves the ultra-Protestant and Liberal, will be found as prejudicial to the reception of the Canon, as that which we just now examined. There are books, which, great sin as it would be in us to reject, I think any candid person would grant are presented to us under circumstances less promising than those which attend upon the Church doctrines. Take, for instance, the Book of Esther. This book is not quoted once in the New Testament. It was not admitted as canonical by two considerable Fathers, Melito and Gregory Nazianzen. It contains no prophecy; it has nothing on the surface to distinguish it from a mere ordinary history; nay, it has no mark on the surface of its even being religious history. Not once does it mention the name of GOD or LORD, or any other name by which the God of Israel is designated. Again, when we inspect its contents, it cannot be denied that there are things in it which at first sight startle one, and demand our faith. Why then do we receive it? Because we have good reason from tradition to believe it to be one of those which our LORD intended, when He spoke of " the prophets "."

In like manner the Book of Ecclesiastes contains no prophecy, is referred to in no part of the New Testament, and contains passages which at first sight are startling. Again: that most sacred Book, called the Song of Songs, or Canticles, is a continued type from beginning to end. Nowhere in Scripture, as I have already observed, are we told that it is a type; nowhere is it hinted that it is not to be understood literally. Yet it is only as having a deeper and hidden sense, that we are accustomed to see a religious purpose in it. Moreover, it is not quoted or alluded to once all through the New Testament. It contains no prophecies. Why do we consider it divine? For the same reason; because tradition informs us that in our SAVIOUR's time it was included under the title of " the Psalms :" and our SAVIOUR, in St. Luke's Gospel, refers to "the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms."

1 Luke xxiv. 44.

VOL. V.

- 85.

G