though it is an evidence against the very system which it was supposed to uphold. This passage is found in the Second Epistle to Timothy, third chapter, fifteenth verse: "From thy infancy thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus." Timothy was brought up from his infancy in the fear and love of God; accordingly he knew the Scriptures, not by his own independent reading, not by his own exposition, but like the like the other Hebrew youths who were taught in the synagogue, as St. Paul had been, who says, in the twenty-second chapter of Acts, third verse, "At the feet of Gamaliel he was taught according to the truth of the law of the fathers." Did Timothy form his creed through his own interpretation of what he had thus learned? No, but by "the faith which he had in Jesus Christ." How did he obtain that faith? By the instruction of Paul, who had told him in the preceding verse, "Continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee, knowing of whom thou hast learned them." So, Bible or no Bible, Timothy was to continue in the things he had heard, and he was to apply his scriptural knowledge according to the standard "of faith in Christ Jesus."

But if evident proofs from the inspired writings in support of the exclusive sufficiency of Scripture are wanting, presumptive proofs, supposing, not admitting such to exist, are of no service. For, though ever so cogent, they cannot alone suffice to show that the doctrine they uphold is an object of divine faith; since divine faith cannot rest on probability or presumption, but only on the clear testimony of God.

On the other hand, we have the strongest reason for believing that

the divine founder of the Christian religion did not intend that the Scriptures should be the exclusive rule of faith. For had he so designed, had he thought that it was impossible for tradition to preserve in their purity his divine revelations, it is quite improbable that he would have omitted to charge his disciples with the important obligation of committing to writ ing a full exposition of all the truths which he communicated to them for the information of mankind. Now our opponents ought to show that Christ did issue such a charge to his disciples. But neither the language of Christ nor that of the inspired writers, nor the conduct observed by the latter in publishing the New Testament, nor any testimony of the primitive Church, afford the least probability for such a conclusion. Nay, it appears that the very contrary is the case.

As it was by preaching that Christ communicated his divine doctrines, so by preaching did he commission his followers to manifest them to the world. St. Paul, instead of referring to any commands that he should write the revelations he had received, declares in the following terms the nature of the obligation to which he was held: "If I preach the Gospel, it is no glory to me; for woe is unto me if I preach not the Gospel." In like manner it is rather to his preaching that in many places he makes reference, than to his written epistles, or the written. gospels of Matthew and Mark, which were then published.

Moreover, had the apostles received an order from Jesus Christ to commit to writing all the doctrines which mankind were to believe, would any of them have delayed its fulfilment, as St. John did, until upwards of sixty years after the ascension of Christ? Would only five out of the twelve

apostles have been exact in their obedience? Would not all have exhibited their compliance by at least a formal and public testimony of their approbation of those writings which others had penned? Besides, if the apostles had been ordered, or even if they had designed to leave in writing, the whole of the truths which Christ taught, and men were to believe, 66 so that whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith," is it too much to expect that agreeably to the suggestions of human prudence they would have rendered their exposition of revealed truths so methodical, so clear, and so ample that it could not easily be mistaken, even by the ignorant part of mankind?

Now it is notorious that between the different books which compose the New Testament there is little or no professed connection; that in the same book the transitions are frequently so abrupt as to render the meaning almost unintelligible; that the most sublime matters are frequently discussed with a conciseness, an obscurity, and an elevation in the style, sentiments, and diction, which have oftentimes been a stumbling-block to the most learned. So far are we from meeting with any proof of their having been the consequence of a divine command, or the result of a common design, we find several years elapsed before even the gospel of St. Matthew was published, and we learn from Eusebius, an early writer of the fourth century, that we are indebted for each of the four gospels to fortuitous occurrences. Thus he informs us (Hist., 1. 3, E. 24) that ST. MATTHEW, after having preached in Judea, and being about to undertake the conversion of the Gentiles, penned his gospel that he might leave to the Jews a perpetual memorial of

his preaching. The same author relates, on the authority of Papias and St. Clement of Alexandria, that ST. MARK wrote his gospel neither by his own free choice nor at the command of St. Peter, but at the earnest solicitation of the Roman converts. ST. LUKE himself tells us, at the beginning of his first chapter, that he published his gospel to refute the false narrations of the actions of Jesus Christ which many ignorant and presumptuous persons had published. ST. JOHN, we are informed by Eusebius and St. John Chrysostom, preached the Gospel almost to the end of his life without writing; and St. Irenæus and Jerome mention that at length, when almost worn out by extreme old age, he was compelled by the entreaties of the bishops of Asia to compose his gospel against the rising heresy of the Ebionites, who denied the divinity of Christ; whence it is prob able that had no such heresy sprung up, we should not have had this work of the beloved disciple. To accidental events we are also indebted for the epistles of St. Paul and of the other canonical writers. Most of them display internal evidence that they owe their origin to the necessities of one or the other of the newly established churches. They are designed sometimes to put a stop to the contests between the Jews and Gentiles concerning their respective superiority; sometimes to regulate the conduct which should be observed towards a scandalous brother; sometimes to correct those who gloried in the exterior works of the law and in mere ceremonial observances; sometimes to combat the abuses or vices into which certain congregations or individuals had fallen; sometimes to return thanks for the relief afforded to their needy brethren; to gratify their zeal by an account of the progress of the Gospel; and to encourage them amidst the peculiar

necessities under which they la bored. But nowhere do we find any of the inspired writers proposing to furnish the church which he addresses with a written record of all the doctrines and duties inculcated by our divine Redeemer for belief and practice, or insinuating any commission from Christ for that purpose.

Neither from the conduct of the primitive Christians does the doctrine of the exclusive sufficiency of Scripture receive any authority. Had, indeed, the disciples of the apostles been taught by them to hold "that whatever is not written in the Bible, or proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith," they would have been bound to adopt precautions for securing the advantages of the written word to themselves, and for transmitting them to future ages, similar to those which in these days some persons deem of such importance. They should have provided a vast collection of copies of the Holy Scripture; they should have established societies for the dissemination of the divine word; they should have everywhere instituted schools wherein children and adults might learn to acquaint themselves with the sole rule of faith; they should have produced translations of the Bible into the language of every nation to which the faith was carried. The neglect of such precautions (whereby alone, supposing the truth of the Protestant system, they could have insured the faith committed to them against human corruption) would have been unaccountable. Do facts, however, demonstrate that any such precautions were adopted? No, not one. We know from the works of ancient Christian writers that ST. ANDREW preached the faith of Christ to the Scythians; that ST. THOMAS announced it by word to the Indus, the Medes, the Parthians, the Hyr

canians, Hindoos, and various savage tribes; that ST. PHILIP, ST. BARTHOLOMEW, and other apostles, spread the doctrines of their divine Master among remote and barbarous countries; but we do not read that they wrote themselves or took pains to teach to the multitude of their converts the writings of others. We know, moreover, that prior to the discovery of printing the labor of transcribing books was long and tedious; that the copies of each work were consequently very limited; that their cost was very high; that hence the number of those who were able to procure the Holy Scriptures, and, when procured, to read them, especially at the early period of Christianity, was very small.

Finally, earlier than the fifth century we discover no traces of a translation of the Bible into the African, Illyrian, Scythian, Celtic, Irish, or Spanish languages; yet we have positive evidence that in the fourth century there existed Christian churches in nations where such were the vernacular tongues. Now if nothing was to be believed except what could be proved by the Scriptures," an immense majority of Christian converts, having been totally unable to read the Scriptures, or even to procure a copy of them in a language which they could understand, would have been excluded from the only means of acquiring and transmitting a knowledge of the true faith. at all probable that our wise and indulgent Redeemer would have instituted for the "only rule of faith" a method involving so many difficulties?

The difficulties which I have brought forward are not imaginary; they actually existed universally in the times succeeding the apostles, and continued in some degree until the fifteenth century, in which the art of printing was invented. Accordingly, St. Iren

"What wondrous monument

What pile is this?"-CHATTERTON.

OF Rome's patriarchal churches, though second in rank, the first in grandeur is the Vatican Basilica. This shrine, as is well known, preserves the relics of Christianity's pioneers, and is dedicated to the Prince of the Apostles.

When viewed from a Latian or Sabine Mountain, even at a distance of about twenty miles, St. Peter's cross-surmounted dome may be seen towering, in isolated majesty, above the city of the seven hills. The Believer and the Infidel, the Christian and the Jew, gaze upon it, if not with equal respect, at least with equal admiration for the baptized may well feel within so sacred a place the presence of the Deity; while Hebrews must acknowledge that a nobler substitute for Jerusalem's fallen temple has never yet been raised to the God of Israel.

Such alien critics as Gibbon, De la Lande, Forsythe, and Byron, have been enthusiastic in praise of Rome's Vatican Basilica. Even the skeptic Dupaty avowed that a visit to St. Peter's Church sufficed to fix his thoughts on God and eternity.

According to the account of it by Richard Lassells (A.D. 1679): "You will wonder, perchance, when you shall hear that this church is the eighth wonder of the world; that the pyramids of Egypt, the walls of Babylon, the Pharos, the Colosseum, &c., were but mere heaps of rubbish compared to this fabric; that it hath put all antiquity to the blush, and all posterity to a nonplus; that its several parts are all incomparable masterpieces; its pictures all originals; its statues perfect models; that the prime architects of the world-Sangello, Bramante, Raffaele, Michael

Angelo, Fontana, Maderno, and Hermini-have brought it to that perfection that the whole church itself is nothing but the quintessence of merit and wealth, strained into a religious design of making a handsome house to God."

Since Mr. Lassell's pilgrimage, nearly two centuries have elapsed; and, considering the adjuncts and improvements made to the edifice by munificent Pontiffs, Childe Harold's address may not be deemed an exaggeration:

"Oh Thou, of temples old, or altars hew,

Standest alone, with nothing like to thee-
Worthiest of God, the Holy and the True,
Since Zion's desolation, when that He
Forsook His former city, what could be,
Of earthly structure to His honor piled
Of a sublimer aspect? Majesty,

Power, glory, strength, and beauty-all are aisled

In this eternal ark of worship undefiled."

The exterior illumination of St. Peter's Church is an electrifying spectacle on festive occasions. The cupola is twice metamorphosed, as it were, into a hemisphere of light. The earliest illumination at nightfall displays the building's architectural outline to great advantage. For this purpose are prepared 4400 lamps of a cylindrical form. The task of the lamplighters is apparently not without peril. It is alarming to witness them at work, grasping ropes suspended high in the air, swinging to and fro, from architrave to pediment, from frieze to cornice, and from capital to pillar, to arrange their lanterns in symmetrical order.

An hour later, a thousand larger lamps are enkindled simultaneously. To accomplish the changes with all possible speed, at proper distances, on the cupola, three hundred and sixty men are suspended with ready lighted though concealed torches. At a third signal from the belfry, the cross on the apex of the dome suddenly glitters into flame; the rest of the enormous