much that the Romanist or the Socinian can both just as easily and plausibly draw, the one his "Mariolatry," and the other the simple humanity of Christ from it, as the Catholic can the articles of the Nicene Creed, be or be not a comparatively "new" position taken up in Mr. Faber's valuable theological volumies, I have no hesitation in answering boldly, openly, and without any qualification whatever, that it is new; for besides that Mr. Faber has somewhere very lately admitted that he has been working upon it for about twelve years* past, the following paragraphs placed in juxta-position, I think, will place the matter beyond all doubt:

Mr. Faber's Opinion published in 1823 Mr. Faber's Opinion published in 1839.

and 1830.

"I have often felt at a loss to conceive what proof WITHIN THE CAPACITY OF LANGUAGE that Christ is very God as well as very man would satisfy a Socinian reasoner. In Holy Scripture our Lord is declared to be Jehovah, is described as the creator of the world, and is decorated with the incommunicable attributes of the Deity. IS IT POSSIBLE FOR LANGUAGE TO GO ANY FURTHER? I confess that I SEE NOT WHAT MORE CAN BE SAID. We may fairly ask the Socinians what Scriptural proof, within the compass of language, do you demand? Do you require that Christ should be expressly called God? He is expressly so called. Do you require, in order that all ambiguity may be avoided, that he should additionally be declared to be Jehovah? He is additionally so declared to be. Do you require, on the plea that an express delineation of character is less equivocal than a mere application of name that he should he described as invested with the incommunicable attributes of the Deity? He is described as being so invested. Now

"When primitive antiquity from the very beginning is unanimous in deducing a given doctrine from the words of Scripture, we are bound even on the principles of plain common sense to receive that deduction as the undoubted mind of Scripture,+ instead of resorting to the strange wild scheme of insulated private judgment, which inevitably places on the SAME footing of authority the sound doctrine of Christ's essential Godhead, and what of old was termed the God-denying apostasy. For if the process of insulated private judgment, which may freely set the unanimous testimony of antiquity at defiance, is to be adopted, I see not how even the orthodox himself, if he has the good fortune to be orthodox, only on such a plan can consistently refuse to the Socinian that same right and privilege which he claims for himself. So far as I can understand the merits of the case, he must admit the Socinian's principle of interpretation to be just as valid as his own; for in simple verity they are neither more nor less than identical. In short, if we adopt

I am sorry that the majority of my books being packed away previously to a removal, I cannot refer to the exact place where Mr. Faber mentions this; but I have now within a few feet of me a work of his printed in the year 1807, which I hope soon to quote with reference to a very curious and interesting subject. With respect to " Mariolatry," it may seem strange that in former letters I have not quoted Mr. Horne's work so entitled, which is so highly spoken of; but though I have got, I have not yet read it.

This is what I complain of, that antiquity is spoken of as if it were to overbear and supersede all other aids and helps, and to be considered adequate alone as THE ONE interpreter of Scripture; and nothing is said of the highly important fact, that we only possess the written record of a part, and that a small part, of the really primitive Church nearest to the apostolic times.

There is a wide difference between freely setting it at defiance, and predetermining to receive implicitly any "given doctrine," be it never so absurd or impious, which that position of primitive antiquity remaining on record might have propounded for our acceptance as the proper interpretation of Scripture.

I would ask, what CAN be demanded MORE than these three particulars? If the explicit enunciation of these do not satisfy a candid enquirer, what is there within the compass of language that can satisfy him. Why do the Socinians believe the Father to be very God? I know no other Scriptural reason for their belief than this; the Father is styled God, is declared to be Jehovah or the Self-Existent, and is vested with the incommunicable attributes of Deity. If, then, they be satisfied with such a proof of the divinity of the Father, why are they dissatisfied with the selfsume proof of the divinity of the Son? The Son, no less than the Father, is styled God, is declared to be Jehovah or the SelfExistent, and is vested with the incommunicable attributes of Deity." Treatise on the three Dispensations, vol. ii., p. 401-403, note.

"Even if it had been clearly revealed that the Latin Church is incapable of error, and even if the precise organ of her infallibility had by Scriptural authority been plainly defined, still, to derive any benefit from such infallibility, it would yet additionally be necessary that each individual Christian should himself be rendered incapable of

error.

"The alleged uncertainty and indefiniteness of Scripture is a fruitful topic of argument with every zealous Romanist, and this very indefiniteness is urged in proof that for the establishment of the faith infallibility is neces

the plan of theologising on the basis of mere insulated private judgment, we may, indeed, deduce opinions from Scripture; for what we simply think or opine to be the sense of doctrinal holy writ, is simply an opinion, but on this plan it is absolutely impossible that we should legitimately, at least, deduce any binding articles of faith, because if on scriptural authority we would fairly lay down a binding article of faith, we must not idly talk of what we think, but we must bring some tangible and intelligible proof, that it is really contained in Scripture."-Postcript to Second Edition of Primitive Doctrine of Justification, p. xliv-xlvi.

"The editor of the "Christian Examiner," has shut himself out from any appeal to historical testimony; for he has roundly declared such an appeal to be vicious in principle, and he has thus reduced the interpretation of the Bible to a mere question of insulated private judgment, or of bare unaided opinion. His antagonist, a Socinian we will say, cheerfully meets him upon this ground, and then forthwith comes the interminable tug of wordy war, which by both parties alike is conducted upon their common principle, that the whole of doctrinal interpretation is nothing more than a pure matter of private opinion. Now one man's private judgment is just as authoritative as another man's private judgment, and therefore what has been called heresy stands upon the very same footing of authority as what has been called orthodoxy.

And why not practical holy writ also? why is this excluded? why is not an unanimous interpretation of the nature and extent of all the preceptive parts of the Bible equally necessary? Are they of less importance? I have before requested an answer to this query, but have not been favoured with one.

The question is, what is here meant by "tangible proof?" Proof of the same force as mathematical demonstration, or actual experience, we have no right to expect or call for in this our probationary state. Reasonable moral evidence and probability is all we have a right to desire, as Mr. Faber, in a passage which shall be presently referred to, most abundantly shows, and that the Romanists only delude themselves in fancying that they have anything more than this.

Here I humbly submit that the editor of the "Examiner" would have a right to ask whether the system advocated by Mr. Faber has had the effect of putting an end to this "wordy war," or not. If it has not, which is abundantly evident, and admitted in page 115 of the Churchman, for February, 1843, then he would naturally inquire in what respect Mr. Faber's plan was superior to his own. When a remedy is held forth as competent to cure a disease or to remove an inconvenience, can we wonder that it is treated with neglect and thrown aside when it proves on trial utterly inadequate to perform the work which was expected, and which its advocates declared it competent to do?

sary, and therefore that God has conferred it upon his Church.

But those ingenious persons who thus argue, seem never to have observed that exactly the same difficulty, if difficulty it be, attends equally upon the decisions both of popes and of councils" [and of the early fathers]. Scripture, as the word of God, we know to be infallible; popes and councils have by the Romanists been alleged to be infallible. If, then, the acknowleged infallibility of Scripture may, in actual operation, prove unavailing, because a confessedly fallible reader may doubtless mistake its import, certainly the alleged infallibility of a pope or a council," [or the de facto infallibility of the ancient fathers, considered under the aspect of witnesses to the true interpretation of Scripture] "may, in actual operation, be equally unavailing; because a confessedly fallible reader or hearer of their infallible decisions may entirely misunderstand such decisions. In the abstract, let the decisions themselves be ever so free from error, still no person can be infallibly sure that he annexes to them their true meaning, unless he himself be also infallible. The Romanist, in short, cannot object to infallible Scripture its liability to be misunderstood, unless explained by an infallible interpreter, without having his objection forthwith retorted upon himself, in regard to the alleged infallible decisions of a pope or a council" [or of the Primitive Church]. "Every reader or hearer of such decisions must himself be infallible ere he can be infallibly sure that he does not misunderstand them."-Difficulties of Romanism, 2nd Edition, p. 39-41.

The editor's opinion looks one way, his opponent's opinion looks another way; each alike reprobates any appeal to testimony, each alike contends that nothing can be more clear than the scriptural statement; but then unluckily, the two severally understand and interpret this statement in modes directly opposite. What is to be done in such an emergency? What right has either of them to talk of the other's awful delusion, or of his terrible departure from the Gospel? What right has either of them to call his adversary a heretic, and to vindicate to himself alone the honourable title of orthodox. The whole is a pure matter of opinion; each rejects the aid of historical testimony, and therefore neither can give any better reason for his opinion than that it must be correct, because he thinks it correct. On such a vacillating principle we can never, in the legitimate sense of the phrase, have an article of faith. Acting purely on the ground of insulated and uninformed private judgment, we may, indeed, build opinions upon the Bible; but by such a process a binding article of faith can never be extracted from it."-Primitive Doctrine of Justification, Second Edition, Appendix, p. 378.

Now, as I humbly conceive that it would be quite impossible to reconcile the conflicting sentiments on the opposite columns which are

This exactly touches the point. I maintain that Mr. Faber does, in his later writings, lay himself open to this retort, in adducing the fathers as de facto (in their character of witnesses), infallible interpreters of Scripture. Every day's experience shows that opinions differ as much respecting the import of their writings as about the import of Scripture. It is necessary to state that, in the above passage, from the "Difficulties of Romanism," the words between brackets are my own; and I have introduced them because the line of argument adopted by Mr. Faber is just as clearly and undeniably applicable to the primitive fathers as it is to the popes and councils. Mr Faber goes on from the point where I have left off to the end of the chapter, to refute the childish objection of the Romanists, that the faith of the Reformed Churches rests only upon moral evidence, and retorts it in the most triumphant manner upon themselves.

here quoted-the one of which declares that the Bible is so clear and express on the doctrine of Christ's divinity, that LANGUAGE CAN GO NO FURTHER and NOTHING MORE CAN BE SAID; the other, that the Bible, even on this fundamental point, is UTTERLY OBSCURE, and equally so I presume on the doctrine of the Being of a God; inasmuch as it pronounces that from it we never can legitimately extract AN article of faith, no not ONE single solitary article; I hope Mr. Faber will not take it amiss that I prefer his earlier opinions to his later ones, and still continue to think that God did cause a book to be written intelligible in all absolutely necessary truth to mankind, provided they will diligently use ALL the helps he has afforded to them, and not resting alone on the testimony of that portion of primitive antiquity which remains extant to our times; for the opposite opinion appears to me to involve consequences so tremendous that I shudder to contemplate them, one of which is, that it places a weapon in the hands of an unbelieving Jew which he may aim at the heart of Christianity itself; for as it is built exclusively on a particular interpretation of the Old Testament, the Jew may insist that the Old Testament as much requires an unanimous interpretation as the New, and that the Christian's belief is, when it comes to be sifted, merely his own unauthorised assumption of what he chooses to determine to be the true interpretation of Moses and the prophets.*

And as it appears after all, even by Mr. Faber's own showing, Churchman, February, 1843, page 115, that disputes are not, in point of fact, determined, nor "the interminable tug of wordy war" terminated by the system which he advocates, but, on the contrary, that we stumble on the very threshold, and no sooner set our foot upon Clemens Romanus than we find that same “war renewed with double ardour. I want to be informed wherein consists the superiority of the system advocated by Mr. Faber over that advocated by Bishop Hurd and myself, that the Bible, interpreted by the best reason our Creator has given to us, exercising itself diligently upon ALL the materials placed within our reach, is the religion of Protestants? Two words more and I have done. I do not think it is fairly charged upon the opponents of Mr. Faber's system, that they freely set at defiance the testimony of antiquity, merely because they refuse to pledge themselves to receive implicitly as the undoubted mind of Scripture whatever it may determine to be so; and to show that this is not a fair statement of the case, I again refer the reader to Mr. Holden's work on Tradition.

Lastly, I think that the phrase "insulated private judgment," requires some explanation, because I am not aware that it is usual for any sober persons to profess an opinion, merely as an opinion, on any great and important matter, without giving some other reason for it than

⚫ I have before pressed this consideration on Mr. Faber's attention, but I do not remember that he has thought it worthy of notice, which is the case with various other points I have submitted in my letters on this topic; but I request the reader to recapitulate and weigh them.

+ Of course I do not mean that there may not be individuals found who are fairly chargeable with such presumption.

that they think so; though doubtless there are many individuals who abuse private judgment as they do the other gifts wherewith God has endowed them. I am, Sir, your obliged servant, Feb. 5, 1843.

PHOENIX.

LETTERS ON PROPHECY.-No. VIII.

To the Editor of the Churchman.

SIR, Before proceeding to the next vision, there are two further objections which it seems desirable to remove, though drawn from the later part of the previous visions, and thus properly belonging to a further stage of my enquiry. These are the alleged identity of the two little horns, and the use of the word kings as equivalent to kingdoms. I will now examine them in succession:

III. THE TWO LITTLE HORNS.

The following extract will show the nature of Dr. Todd's argument," But, as we have already seen, there exists no reason whatsoever for supposing the fourth beast of the former vision to be the Roman empire; nor have commentators been able to discover in the Roman power, the marks attributed in prophecy to the predicted kingdom. The more legitimate process of reasoning therefore would seem to be to invert the argument, and to say that since the identity of the two prophecies appears from a comparison of the prophecies themselves; and since it is expressly declared in one of them, that the kingdom from which the little horn is to spring is not the Roman empire; therefore the kingdom from which the other little horn is to spring cannot be the Roman empire either.”

The credulity of scepticism is proverbial, and the above paragraph is an instance. The application of the fourth beast to Rome, besides the concurrence of all ages of the Church, has been shown capable of strict demonstration from the sequence of the prophecy, and from the words of Scripture alone. Dr. Todd by his silence admits the accordance of every feature, save one or two at the most; and the objections on these are such as a child might answer. Therefore" there is no reason whatsoever for believing it." But the two little horns, out of ten or twelve features in each, have three or four in common. Therefore, although the Fathers, Romanists and Protestants, have almost without exception held them to be distinct, their identity is to be assumed as nearly selfevident, and made the basis of the whole scheme of exposition!

But let us examine the argument for this identity, as Dr. Todd presents it in his Third Lecture. First, he counts seven characters of the little horn of the fourth beast, diverseness from the other kings, blasphemy, destruction because of blasphemy, persecution of the saints, continuance for three times and a half, changing of times and laws, and consumption at the second Advent. Next, he traces the marks of correspondence in the second little horn. It waxed great in three directions, as the first subdues three kings; it magnifies itself against the prince of the host, a mark of blasphemy;