>
1. ...without further revelation the Bible is an insufficient guide. That part of the Bible called the New Testament was written many years after the establishment of the Christian Church. How was the Church founded and governed before the New Testament was written? Answer: by the revelations of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, speaking through the apostles and prophets. These revelations were verbal, and not written: were delivered by word of mouth, and not with pen and ink. Large and numerous churches were established in Palestine, in Asia, in Europe and among the various nations of the eastern hemisphere, which were abundantly blessed with revelations, with prophecies, with dreams and visions with the ministry of angels, and with the miraculous powers and manifestations of the Holy Spirit, and yet they had not the writings of the New Testament.

2. If the Church could be founded and grow, and flourish, and be perfected without the New Testament writings: if she could, through verbal revelation, learn every principle of doctrine, and be taught in every duty, during the most of the first century, the same gift of revelation and prophecy could have instructed her in all generations, even though the New Testament had never been written. If inspired apostles, prophets, and other officers could perfect the Saints in the first century, surely the same kind of officers could perfect them in all future ages. Written revelations were never intended to supersede verbal and continued revelation through the living ministry. If the Church of Christ had continued on the earth, successive apostles and prophets would have continued with her, endowed with all the powers and gifts of the first, and the revelations in each successive generation would have been equally sacred with those given at the first, and there would have been no such thing thought of as the canon of scripture being full and complete.

3. There are many things practiced by both Romish and Protestant churches which the scriptures do not clearly reveal, therefore they must both of them consider that the scriptures are not a sufficient guide. We are informed in the scriptures that marriage is ordained of God, but we are not informed in the scripture who has the right to officiate in this ceremony. Who can tell from the New Testament anything about the order to be observed in relation to this subject? We read that "what God hath joined together let no man put asunder," but through what particular office does God join together the sexes in matrimony? Can laymen officiate? Can those out of the Church officiate? Can a woman officiate? Can the parties join themselves together in matrimony, in the name of the Lord? Who can answer these questions from the Bible alone? No one. The Bible does not guide the Church in this important ordinance.

4. Who can tell from the Bible whether Teacher and Deacons have authority to baptize, or not? Baptism is an important ordinance, and should be administered by proper authority, but can any one in the Church administer it? Can private members baptize? Can women baptize? Does the Bible anywhere forbid them, or say that they are not authorized? John the Baptist, who held the Priesthood of Aaron, had authority to baptize. Apostles, Elders and Evangelists baptized. Did the authority extend to any lower officers or members? The Bible does not inform us; therefore the Bible is not a sufficient guide.

5. Again, what officers in the Church have a right to lay on hands for gift of the Holy Spirit? Can any but apostles administer the Spirit by this sacred ordinance? Ananias was sent to Paul to baptize him, and lay his hands upon him, that he "might be filled with the Holy Ghost." Was Ananias an apostle? or did he hold some lower office? Philip could baptize the Samaritans, while Peter and John laid hands upon both men and women for the gift of the Holy Ghost. The great question is, can any but apostles lay on hands in the ordinance of confirmation? The Bible does not answer his question, therefore the Bible is not a sufficient guide.

6. It is admitted that the Lord's supper is a divine ordinance; but who is authorized to break the bread and bless it, and also the wine, and administer it to the Saints? Can Teachers or Deacons do this with authority? Can private members or women administer in the solemn ordinance? There is nothing in the New Testament that either authorizes or forbids them to do it. Can any one, without being instructed by new revelation, administer the Lord's supper in His name, with His authority, and by His sanction? The Bible does not answer this question, therefore the Bible is not a sufficient guide.

7. In what particular points does a Teacher's duty differ from a Deacon's? Wherein do the duties of Elders, Evangelists and Pastors differ? What authority has one that the others do not possess? All these are questions which the Bible does not plainly answer, yet to be a sufficient guide, it should answer all such questions definitely.

8. Is infant baptism right or wrong? Does the Bible anywhere teach infant baptism by command or example? If infant baptism be right, the Bible has not informed us of it, therefore it must be an insufficient guide. If infant baptism be wrong, at what age should children be baptized? Upon this question the Bible also is silent.

9. Should the members or officers of the Church lay their hands upon little children, and pray for them, and bless them after the example that Jesus has given or not? This is a question that cannot be settled by the Bible.

10. Should all the Saints wash one another's feet, or is this an ordinance limited to the apostles and officers of the Church? The Bible is again silent, and does not plainly answer the question.

11. Again, must the seventh day or the first day of the week be kept holy unto the Lord? The New Testament does not clearly answer this question. There is rather more evidence in that book for keeping holy the Sabbath day or Saturday, than there is for keeping the first day or Sunday. The New Testament is very indefinite on this subject, and therefore it is an insufficient guide.

12. Furthermore, where in the Bible does it say that the king and people of England ought to revolt from the Romish church, and form a church of their own by act of parliament? If the Bible were a sufficient guide, why was an act of parliament necessary as another guide to form the English church? If the Bible were a sufficient guide, why was another book made, called the "Book of Common Prayer," and the people compelled to give heed to it under pain of banishment, and even death itself? If the articles of religion, contained in the New Testament were a sufficient guide, why were "Thirty-nine Articles" more, enforced upon the people by acts of parliament, and the people butchered and murdered because they could not conscientiously comply with them? It is certain that this newly-formed parliament-made church considered the Bible to be very deficient as a guide, or they never would have resorted to such blood-thirsty, murderous measures to establish other books in addition to the Bible.

13. If Protestants suppose the Bible to be a sufficient guide, as they are constantly telling their followers, will they be so kind as to point out what part of that sacred book, called Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Wesley and hosts of others, to preach, baptize and administer many other ordinances such as the ancient Church administered? Indeed, what part of the Bible calls and commissions any of the ministers of the present day? It can be said without any fear of contradiction, that the Bible nowhere has called a single individual to the work of the ministry for the last seventeen centuries. Therefore, for the calling of the ministry, the Bible is an insufficient guide.

14. Again, what part of the Bible has established the salaries of the different officers in the church? If it be necessary that preachers should have wages, how much shall it be? How much more shall an apostle get than a prophet? If a bishop get from ten to twenty thousand pounds for one year's preaching, how much should an inspired apostle or prophet get? Or how much should some of the lower officers have? The New Testament does not tell us the amount of wages religious hirelings should have, therefore, if it be important to know, the Bible is an insufficient guide. It says, however, that apostles should "take neither purse nor scrip," but it leaves ;us entirely in the dark as to how much bishops, arch-bishops, and other officers should have. Would itnot be a wise plan for an act of parliament to increase their wages a little, lest they suffer? We see plainly that the Bible is not a sufficient guide in many, very many points, as the doings of the whole Protestant world most plainly declare.

15. Let us now see whether the Roman Catholics consider the Bible a sufficient guide. They plainly tell us in their writings that they do not. So far, then, they are consistent. But what do they suppose makes up the deficiency? They answer, "tradition," or the "unwritten word" of God, as it was spoken by the apostles, and handed down uncorrupted to the present day. The Right Reverend Doctor Milner, a very able and learned Catholic bishop, says, "The Catholic rule of faith, as I stated before, is not merely, the written word of God, but the whole word of God, both written and unwritten; in other words, Scripture and Tradition, and these propounded and explained by the Catholic Church." ["End of Controversy," Letter 10, p. 125.] The Catholics do not believe in any later revelations than what were given in the first age of Christianity: this may be seen in their writings. Dr. Milner, in speaking of the Papist churches, says, "It is a fundamental maxim with them all, never to admit of any tenet, but such as is believed by all the bishops, and was believed by their predecessors up to the apostles themselves." [Ibid., Letter 12, p. 166.] According to this, the Romanists never admit any new tenet. With their views, no revelations can be given‹all things believed or received by them must be traced back through all "their predecessors up to the apostles themselves": they are not permitted to believe any thing which their fathers were ignorant of. When any thing is presented to them, the question is not, whether it is a new revelation from God, but they immediately inquire, has it been believed by the church since the first age? If it has not, it is rejected. The Catholic church does not claim the assistance of the Spirit to reveal any thing new, "but merely," as Bishop Milner expresses himself, she claims "the aid of God's Holy Spirit, to enable her truly to decide what her faith is, and has ever been in such articles as have been made known to her by scripture and tradition." [Ibid., p. 168.]

16. After revelation ceased to be given, and, consequently, the Church of Christ ceased its existence on the earth, many of the first apostates pretended that scripture and tradition were a sufficient guide, and that nothing new was needed. Irenaeus, who lived in the second century, seems to have forgotten that God placed in the Church inspired men to constantly instruct her by new revelation, and like all the subsequent apostates lays great stress upon tradition. He says, "supposing the apostles had not left us the scriptures, ought we not still to have followed the ordinance of tradition, which they consigned to those to whom they committed the churches? It is this ordinance of tradition," continues he, "which many nations of barbarians, believing in Christ, follow, without the use of letters or ink." [Advers. Haeres., Letter 4, c. 64.] Tertullian, who lived at the close of the same century, finding the scriptures an insufficient guide, appeals to tradition instead of new revelation. He says, "We begin, therefore, with laying it down as a maxim, that these men" (speaking of the opponents of his church) "ought not to be allowed to argue at all from scripture. In fact," continues he, "these disputes about the sense of scripture, have generally no other effect than to disorder either the stomach or the brain. It is therefore the wrong method to appeal to the scriptures, since these afford either no decision, or, at most, only a doubtful one. And even, if this were not the case, still, in appealing to scripture, the natural order of things requires that we should first inquire to whom the scriptures belong. From whom, and by whom, and on what occasion, and to whom that tradition was delivered by which we became Christians." [Praescrip. Advers. Haeres., edit. Rhenan, pp. 36, 37.] This author in another work [De. Corona Milit.], as Dr. Milner states, "proves, at great length, the absolute necessity of admitting tradition no less than scripture as the rule of faith, inasmuch as many important points, which he mentions, cannot be proved without it."

17. Doctor Milner, to show that the tradition of the apostles together with the scriptures, was the only rule of faith in the early ages of his church, cites us to the writings of St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Cyprian, Origen, etc., of the third century‹St. Basil, and St. Epiphanius of the fourth century‹and St. John Chrysostom at the beginning, and St. Vincent of Lerins, at the end of the fifth century. All these writers, instead of contending for the great and infallible guide, namely, New revelation, which instructed the Church during the first century, have contended merely for ancient scripture and tradition as their only guide‹as their only rule of faith. Thus we can see, how early apostasy succeeded Christianity‹we can see, how early this rule of faith was changed.

18. If all the decrees and decisions of the pope and general councils among the Catholics be examined, it will be seen that such decrees and decisions profess to be founded, not upon new revelation, but upon ancient scripture or tradition. She professes that her general councils are guided by the Holy Ghost in ascertaining what the apostolical traditions are, but that the Holy Ghost does not give them anything new. That these are really the views of the Catholics, may be perceived on almost every page of some of their standard works. The Right Rev. Bishop Milner, in his "End of Religious Controversy," has very definitely, and at some length, set forth this view. J. Murdoch, a Roman Catholic bishop, has highly recommended a work by Joseph Mumford, entitled "Question of Questions," or "Who ought to be our Judge in all Controversies?" In this work the author states most clearly that the Roman Catholic church "pretends to no new revelations, but only to declare clearly what she finds to have before been revealed." ["Questions of Questions," Sec 24, par. 14.] These general councils are considered infallible, not because they are inspired with the word of God direct to themselves, for this power they deny, but because they suppose the Holy Ghost assists them to find out ancient tradition. We again quote, from the last-mentioned work.

19. "Now to see what the councils on their part are to do: I must tell you, that their chief business is to examine the points in controversy; hearing all that occurs for the one side and the other, and permitting several replies, if any remain, in due time to be made. After this diligence is used, they consider what seems most conformable to the word of God, and every one's vote is passed upon this particular. But here I must tell you, that by the word of God, all councils, and orthodox believers have ever understood, not only God's written word, contained in scripture, but also His unwritten word made known to the church only by tradition, which tradition also is, and was ever accounted by the church the very best and surest interpreter of the scripture. The votes therefore of the fathers assembled in council are demanded, not only of what they think to be conformable to God's word written in scripture, but also how conformable such a point is, or is not, to that tradition which they have all received from the fathers of their church, as delivered to them from their fathers for God's word, by tradition committed to their forefathers as such, from the apostles themselves." [Ibid., Sec 19:2.]

20. Let no one suppose that the Catholics believe in new revelation; for in the above quotation it is expressly asserted that, "the unwritten word is made know to the church only by tradition," and that this tradition must come through their fathers "from the Apostles themselves." The business of the Catholic councils, then, is, not to get any word from God direct to themselves, but to determine what God said to the Apostles. That this is all that they pretend to do,k is also evident from the words of Vincentius Lirinensis, as quoted by Mumford; he says, "This only, and nothing but this, the Catholic church does do by the decrees of her council; that what before they had received only by tradition from their ancestors, that now they leave consigned in authentical writing to all posterity." ["Question of Questions," Sec. 19, par. 2.] Councils, then, are convened to determine traditions‹they are convened to write traditions in the form of decrees. Now all this is good as far as it goes, but it stops infinitely short of the true rule of faith, established in the apostolical church, namely, direct and immediate revelation through her officers, whether assembled in council or dispersed individually among the nations.

21. That the apostate papal church does not obtain new revelation, as the apostolical church always did, is still further evident from her defining the canonical books, called scripture. This was first done at the Third Council of Carthage in the year 397. Previous to that time there had been a great variety of opinions as to what books were inspired of God. Mumford speaks thus on this subject:‹"If you fly to the tradition of the church only of the first four hundred years, remember that the Council of Carthage just after the end of those years alleged the ancient tradition of their fathers, which they judged sufficient for defining our canon. They, who were so near those first four hundred years, knew far better the more universal tradition of that age, then we can twelve hundred years after it. True it is, (nothing being defined till then) private doctors were free to follow what they judged to be truest; and as you find them varying from our canon, some in some books, some in others: so you will find them varying from one another, and varying also from you." (meaning the Protestant canon.) "For in those first four hundred years, Melitus and Nazianzen excluded the book of Esther, which you add. Origen doubts of the epistle of the Hebrews, of the second of St. Peter, of the first and second of St. John; St. Cyprian and Nazianzen leave the apocalypse or revelations out of their canon. Eusebius doubt of it." Elsewhere, he says, all those holy fathers agreed ever in this, that such books were evidently God's word, which had evidently a sufficient tradition for them: now in the days of those fathers who thus varied from one another, it was not by any infallible means made know to all, that those books about which their variance was, were recommended for God's infallible word, by a tradition clearly sufficient to ground belief; for the church had not as yet examined and defined, whether tradition did clearly enough show such and such books to be God's infallible word. But in the days of St. Austin, the Third Council of Carthage, Anno 397, examined how sufficient or insufficient the tradition of the church was, which recommended those books for scripture, about which there was so much doubt and contrariety of opinions. They found all the books contained in our canon, of which you account so many apocryphal, to have been recommended by tradition, sufficient to ground faith upon. For on this ground (Can. 47.) they proceeded in defining all the books in our canon to be canonical. Because, say they, we have received from our fathers that those books were to be read in the Church. Pope Innocent the First, who lived Anno 402, being requested by Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, to declare unto him which books were canonical, he answered, (Ep. 3,) that having examined what sufficient tradition did demonstrate, he sets down‹What books are received in the canon of the Holy Scriptures, in the end of his epistle, c. 7. To wit, just those which we know have in our canon: and though he rejects many other books, yet he rejects not one of these." ["Question of Questions," Sec 3, pars. 4, 12.]

22. Here is the most incontrovertible evidence that this apostate church, who define the canon of scripture at the close of the fourth century, did not believe in any inspired books being given after the first century. For if she had believed that any man or officer in her communion had been inspired to write the word of God, during the second, third or fourth century, she would most assuredly have incorporated such inspired writings in the sacred canon; but the very fact that no books were admitted by the council of Carthage into the canon, which were written after the first century, shows most conclusively that they did not consider any later books to be inspired. Here, then, is demonstrative evidence, that the apostate Romish church, during the second, third and fourth centuries were destitute of that great and infallible rule, namely, new revelation which characterized the Church in the first century, and in all previous ages whenever and wherever God had a people living in righteousness before Him.

23. So destitute were the officers of this apostate church of the spirit of revelation that they could not tell, only through tradition, which books were sacred, and which were not; and hence there arose a great contention among them on this subject, and a great variety of opinions. At length the same contending parties meet together in the capacity of a general council, and decide which books shall be received into the canon. Recollect, dear reader, that this decision does not pretend to be founded upon new revelation but upon tradition, and tradition, too, that was so very important that it led one to reject one book, and another, another; producing a great contrariety of opinions before the council met. Who can, for one moment, suppose that a council, composed of a set of contending apostates so destitute of the spirit of truth and faith, that they could not inquire of God and get a revelation upon any subject, however important‹who, I say, can suppose that they could sit in judgment upon God's holy word, and infallibly decide by the aid, not of new revelation, but tradition alone, which books were the word of God and which were not? Had they believed in new revelation, and inquired of God which was His word and which was not, there would have been some confidence to be placed in their decisions; but as it is, there is scarcely any confidence whatever to be placed in them in regard to this matter. Where inspired officers, possessing power to obtain new revelation, have ceased, there infallibility has ceased, and there uncertainty and doubt must remain. Tell about the councils of the church of Rome being infallible! Who ever heard of any council being infallible where there we no prophets and revelators that could decide with a thus saith the Lord, and thus end all controversy? The Church of God never pretends infallibility upon any other grounds; yet, this apostate "Mother of Harlots" can, with one breath, call herself infallible and with the next breath deny new revelation.

24. That the Romanists have continued in their apostasy until the present day is demonstrated from the fact that they have not added one single book to their canon since they first formed it. Now, if there had been any prophet or apostle among them, during the last seventeen centuries, they certainly would have canonized his epistles, revelations and prophecies as being equally sacred with those of the first century. As they have not done this, it shows most clearly, that even they themselves, do not consider that they have had apostles, prophets and revelators among them, during that long period of time. They have had, during the time, many general councils which have confirmed the old canon of scripture, but in no single instance have they confirmed any other books as the word of God, so that their canon stands now as when the council of Carthage left it, without an addition of one revelation. This confirms, beyond all controversy, the testimony of their most standard works, from which we have before quoted, wherein it is repeatedly asserted, previous to and in the first century is the only rule of faith, and that the church "pretends to no new revelations, but only to declare clearly what she finds to have before been revealed"; and also, that the decrees of her councils are in relation to what God said in the first century, and that they by no means admit that He has said anything of a later date, and conformably with these views, they have not admitted anything into the sacred canon as scripture, or as the Word of God, that has been written during the long period of seventeen hundred and fifty years.

25. Upwards of two hundred and fifty popes pretend to have successively filled the chair of St. Peter. All these popes, we are told, have possessed the same authority and power as St. Peter, whom they designate as the first pope, if this really be the case, then each of these popes must have been inspired of God, and the writings of each must be equally as sacred as the writings of Pope St. Peter. Why then has the church showed such great partiality? Why has she placed Pope St. Peter's writings in the sacred canon, and left all the writings of the other popes out?

26. Bishop Milner after having quoted many passages of scripture, and used many arguments to prove the superiority of Peter's calling to that of the other apostles, says, "That bishops in general succeed to the rank and function of the apostles; so, by the same rule, the successor of St. Peter, in the See of Rome, succeeds to his primary jurisdiction." ["End of Controversy," Letter 46, p. 549.] If this be true, "that bishops in general succeed to the rank and function of the apostles," then each bishop, as well as the pope, must be a revelator; for apostles were revelators, and one of the "functions" of their office was to receive revelations; therefore, all the Roman Catholic bishops, if they succeed to the same rank, and exercise the same "functions" as apostles, must be revelators. According to this, since the first century, the Catholics must have had many tens of thousands of revelations, and yet, strange to say, none of their revelations are permitted to enter the sacred canon among other scriptures given in the first century. Here, indeed, is a strange inconsistency! Even the Catholic church herself, evidently places no confidence in the popes and bishops, the pretended successors of St. Peter and the rest of the apostles; if she did, she would have canonized their revelations along with the rest of the revelations of the New Testament. What must we conclude then, as to her bishops holding "the rank and function of apostles"? We can but conclude that it is an imposition‹a wicked soul-destroying imposition, practiced upon the nations by a corrupt apostate church whose officers have no more "the rank and functions of apostles" than the apostate chief priests among the Jews had. Indeed, so long as "they pretend to no new revelations," they cannot exercise the "functions of apostles."

27. It is in vain for the Romish church to pretend that the word of God, spoken to the apostles, is a sufficient guide for all future ages. It is contrary to the dealings of God in all previous dispensations. He never left His faithful people in one age dependent alone on the word spoken in a previous age. The Catholics in appealing to tradition and ancient scripture as their only rule of faith, have endeavored to justify themselves, by falsely telling the people that mankind were dependent on tradition as a rule of faith from Adam to Moses‹a period of about twenty-four hundred years. One of their writers speaks thus: "The whole church through the whole world was governed by tradition only, for the first two thousand years." [Question of Questions," Sec. 19, Par. 8.] This is evidently false; for the whole church governed herself from Adam to Moses, by both tradition and new revelation. Each age, during that period, furnished the Church with revelators who delivered the word of the Lord to her, and she was governed by that word,k and also by the traditions of former ages as far as they were applicable.

28. The Church was not only governed from Adam to Moses by new revelation, but from Moses to the close of the first century of the Christian era. The word of God given in past ages, whether written or unwritten, was never considered by the true Church a sufficient rule of faith in any dispensation since the creation of man. Such an idea was never originated in the Church of God. It was the apostate Catholics that first originated the idea and by them the fatal delusion has been handed down from generation to generation; and all the children that she has brought forth, or that have left her communion, have, more or less, imbibed the same great features of the apostasy. Well might the Revelator John, speaking by the spirit of prophecy, call her "the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth!"

It is her true name, for all the "harlots" which she has brought forth have walked in the footsteps of the "Mother" in declaring against new revelation, and in pretending that ancient revelation was a sufficient rule of faith. It is to be expected that as is the Mother, so will be her Harlot daughters. The daughters in some respects are more corrupt than the mother; for they have limited their rule of faith much more than the mother. Pope Innocent the First, (as we have already quoted),l in the year 402, sat in judgment upon the books of scripture, and reject many of them, from a compilation in the canon. Some eleven or twelve centuries after this, one of the Harlot daughters believed that her mother had retained too much scripture in her canon: therefore, she concluded to make a new canon of her own, which she actually did do, leaving out some half score of books which were in her mother's canon. This newly-formed canon of scripture is palmed upon the British nation and the United States as a sufficient rule of faith. It must be recollected that neither mother nor daughter was guided by new revelation in forming these two different canons of scripture. As the mother decided on the word of God by tradition, so did the daughter, and as tradition taught the mother to reject many books and receive others, so tradition taught the daughter to reject all that her mother rejected, and some half-a score besides. After awhile this harlot daughter brings forth a numerous progeny of children, each of whom alters her creeds, so as to disagree with both mother and grandmother's creeds; yet the church of England with all her daughters agrees in the rejection of the old canon of scripture, and in the reception of the newly-formed one.

29. In the meantime another harlot daughter of the Catholics‹the Lutherans, formed another canon, and rejected many books that the English daughter did not. She cast out the epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews, the epistle of St. James, the second epistle of St. Peter, the second and third of St. John, the epistle of St. Jude and the Apocalypse or Revelation. Here are seven books received into the English Bible, not received into the Lutherans' Bible. Thus we perceive three different canons of scripture, proposed for the faith of mankind. If the Bible alone is a sufficient guide, which of these three Bibles shall we take? Shall we take the Catholic, the Lutheran, or the English Bible? The Catholic Bible contains many things that the English and Lutheran do not, and the English contains many things that the Lutheran does not. Which shall we believe? If it be answered that we are to take all that God ever has revealed and caused to be written, as our rule of faith, then it will require a revelator to bring to light some twenty sacred books that are known once to have existed, but are not now to be found in either of the three Bibles mentioned above. Therefore if we are to take all of God's written word as our rule of faith, it will require another sacred canon to be made out, including all the lost books. This cannot be done by a Roman Catholic or Protestant council, for tradition will not supply lost books. It is certain that if all the written word of God is necessary to be a perfect rule of faith, that neither Catholics nor Protestants can have a perfect rule, for they have only a part of the written word of God. If it be said that a part is sufficient as a rule of faith, then a question at once arises, how large a part will suffice? One sect will answer, that part contained in the Lutheran Bible is sufficient; other sects will say no; the Lutheran Bible does not contain sufficient, but the English Bible contains enough; no, answers another class, the English Bible does not contain enough but the Catholic Bible contains just enough; and where shall we stop? Who has light enough to determine whether the Catholic Bible, which contains far more than the other two, has one tenth part of what is necessary for a perfect rule of faith? If part of God's word forms a perfect rule of faith, I will venture to say, that there is not a man living who is able to say what part of His word should be rejected, and what part retained, in order to form this perfect rule.

30. In those sacred books written by prophets, seers and apostles which have not descended to our day, but which we know once existed, as their names are referred to in scripture‹there may be many great and important doctrines and ordinances revealed that are not contained in our scriptures. Indeed, no one, without further revelation, knows whether even one hundredth part of the doctrines and ordinances of salvation are contained in the few books of scripture which have descended to our times, how then, can it be decided that they are a sufficient guide? May there not be some great and important things contained "in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah, and in the visions of Iddo the seer and in the book of Gad the seer?" [2 Chron 9:29; 1 Chron 29:29.]

31. May there not be important doctrines contained in some of Paul's epistles which we have not got? In the last epistle which Paul wrote from Rome to the Colossians, he commmanded them, "likewise to read the epistle from Laodicea." [Col 4:16.] In that which is commonly called his first epistle to the Corinthians, he says, (Chap. 5:9.) "I wrote unto you in an epistle." Where are these two epistles which Paul himself refers to? They are gone? There may be in these lost epistles doctrines of infinite importance which we know nothing about. That the Corinthians had been instructed in a doctrine which the whole world of Christendom are now ignorant of, is evident from a particular question which he asked them, which reads as follows: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?" [1 Cor 15:29.] This doctrine of baptism for the dead must have been well understood by them, or Paul never would have asked this question without further explanation upon the subject. Now when, and in what manner was this doctrine communicated to them? It may have been fully developed to them in the epistle which he says that he had previously written to them. This doctrine may have been as important as baptism to the living. Does the written or unwritten word of God with which Christendom are acquainted, inform them any thing about how this ceremony is to be performed? Does it inform them who is to officiate? Who is to be the candidate in behalf of the dead? What classes of the dead are to be benefited by it? Does scripture or tradition inform us in what particular baptism for the dead will affect them in the resurrection? Does it inform us whether baptism for the dead can be administered in all places, or only in a baptismal font, in a temple consecrated for that purpose? All these important questions remain unanswered by scripture and tradition. Even the Catholics themselves, who boast of scripture and tradition as their infallible rule of faith, cannot and do not pretend to decide these questions of doctrine.

32. The Rev. Dr. Milner, in speaking of the Catholic church, says, "She does not dictate an exposition of the whole Bible, because she has no tradition concerning a very great proportion of it, as for example, concerning the prophecy of Enoch, quoted by Jude 14; and the baptism for the dead of which St. Paul makes mention." If "a very great proportion" of the Bible cannot be explained for the want of sufficient tradition, then that "very great proportion" of the Bible cannot be of any use; and that very small proportion of the Bible, which tradition does explain, must be a very imperfect rule of faith. For aught the Catholics know there may be hundreds of millions of the dead that will not attain to a first resurrection, because tradition does not explain to them the necessity of being baptized for them. Tradition, and a small proportion of scripture that it explains, are therefore not a sufficient guide. If the Catholics had all the lost books of scripture and a perfect tradition of all the unwritten word of God that has been spoken since the world began, then they would have a little more pretext for holding forth scripture and tradition as an infallible guide, but until then, they have no authority to preach up a part of the books of scripture, united with so little tradition, as an infallible rule of faith.

33. We are told by the Catholics "that many, and very many of the canonical books of the scripture have quite perished, and not so much as appeared in the days of the very ancient fathers; so that nothing but the names of those books are come unto us." It is also acknowledged by the Catholics that a very great proportion of the few books which are left cannot be explained:; it is further acknowledged that the tradition of the unwritten word is so limited, that it does not give them an understanding of many points of doctrine: it is still further acknowledged that their church "pretends to no new revelation," but only to interpret, as far as the few feeble glimmerings of tradition, connected with the very little scripture which they profess to understand, will enable them to do ‹ and yet they tell us, after all these acknowledgments that their very little scripture and their verylittle tradition, is an infallible rule of faith. Oh, blush for the inconsistencies of "the mother of harlots!" Her claims to infallibility and blasphemy! Oh, how could the kings of the earth and all nations have been so horribly imposed upon! But they will yet take vengeance upon her, "and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire," for thus hath the Almighty spoken.

34. We shall now proceed to point out a thing of infinite importance, which is necessary to the very existence of the Church of God on the earth and yet it never cold be learned by either the Bible or tradition. It is this: in order that the true Church may continue its existence on the earth, it is necessary that there should be kept up a regular and constant succession of the orders of the Priesthood; this is admitted by the Catholics; and they refer to upwards of two hundred and fifty popes [as of O. Pratt's writing] who have succeeded St. Peter, and to many tens of thousands of bishops who have succeeded the rest of the apostles. Now if this succession can really be proved, then the Catholic must be the only true and living church on the whole earth, and all the Protestant churches are excommunicated apostates; on the other hand, if such succession does not exist, then both the Catholics and Protestants are apostates from the apostolic Church of Christ, built up in the first century. We take the ground that there has been no regular succession of the orders of the Priesthood through the Catholic church.

35. The first proof which we adduce against any such regular succession is the Catholic rule of faith, namely, ancient scripture and tradition. What word of God, spoken by the apostles, either written or unwritten, has pointed out either of the popes who has pretended to succeed St. Peter, during the last sixteen centuries? We defy the whole Catholic church to bring forward one word of ancient scripture, or ancient tradition, to prove that the popes of the third century, namely, Zephyrinus, Calixtus I, Urban I, Pontanius, Anthurus, Fabian, etc., were the very persons who should succeed St. Peter; if then, neither scripture nor tradition designated the persons who should hold that responsible office, how were the Catholics of the third century to know that either of the above-named persons were the right ones? Perhaps, the Catholics may answer that, though there was no scripture or tradition that pointed them out, yet the church, being infallible, were able to know the right men. We reply, that the Catholic church cannot be infallible, because she "pretends to no revelations," and as we have already seen, she only pretends to be guided in all her decisions and decrees by ancient scripture and tradition and she has no scripture nor apostolic tradition to tell her who, among all the millions of the third century, are called to St. Peter's chair; therefore St. Peter's chair must remain vacated until this important question is settled. And as the Catholics, according to their own admissions, have had no new revelations for the long period of seventeen centuries, therefore St. Peter's chair must have remained vacated during that long period of time. The same reasoning will apply equally to every one of the orders of Priesthood, from St. Peter's chair down to the office of teacher or deacon. Scripture and tradition call no man by name who has lived during the last sixteen centuries; therefore the succession could not possibly continue, as there could be no possible way of finding out who were called and who were not, unless they obtained new revelation, and this would contradict what we have abundantly proved to be their rule of faith; therefore it is proved by the most incontrovertible evidence that the succession of the Priesthood could not legally and lawfully be transferred where there is no new revelation.