a declaration concerning the canon of the New Testament, would be to condemn what was spurious and false. The evidence of the genuineness and authenticity of the acknowledged writings would be concentrated and arranged; and what had previously depended on traditional authority and the general concurrence of accredited testimonies, would be embodied in one specific declaration, as the universal belief of the Christian world. But this was not the formation of the rule, it was only its promulgation. It was not the creation, of an authority unknown before, but a legal provision for the perpetuity of a record; and was evidently designed to preserve the sacred writings, entire and uncorrupted.* But I observe,

THIRDLY. That unless the antecedent authority of the New Testament, prior to all such declarations of it, be acknowledged, it will be impossible to prove the divinity of the Christian Religion.† For the fact that certain writings were invariably regarded as indisputable and authoritative, by those who had it in their power to ascertain the truth of what they contained;-who were under

* See Appendix. NOTE C.

+ It is actually the assertion of Cardinal Bellarmine, "if we take away the authority of the existing Church-the whole Christian "faith becomes doubtful;" and again, he says "the stability of "(Christian) doctrines depends on the authority of the existing "Church." The Cardinal's words are-"Nam si tollamus auc"toritatem præsentis ecclesiæ-in dubium revocari poterunt, om"nium conciliorum decreta, et tota fides Christiana.~Omnium "dogmatum firmitas, pendet ab auctoritate præsentis Ecclesiæ." Bellarm. De Effectu. Sacram: Lib. 2. Cap. 25. Hence it

follows that all the mighty assemblage of evidence, by which prophets, apostles, and Jesus Christ himself established the divine authority of the gospel, is nothing, till human testimony itself confirms it. They might as well assert that we had no reason to believe the Copernican System of philosophy to be true, till the sentence of the Vatican sanctioned and confirmed the discoveries of modern science!

the strongest of all motives to make this inquirywho gave the most convincing proofs that they had made it, and were prepared to undergo every trial that might be requisite, to attest the sincerity of their convictions-the fact, that such men, in such circumstances acknowledged the truth and authority of such writings, is precisely the historic proof of their genuineness and authenticity, and consequently the basis of their divine authority. Let it for a moment be granted, that we have no evidence of the genuineness and authenticity of the New Testament, till the Church of Rome, assures us of the fact-let it be assumed that there are no documents of prior date to that ecclesiastical enactment on which we can depend, and that the authority of that said enactment is our only, or our ultimate reason for believing in the Christian records at all—and the whole fabric of Christianity is, by that very assumption, overthrown. Suppose the Church of Rome had never existed, and that to this very day there had been no formal declaration respecting the canon by any church or churches upon earth; if the ordinary methods of transmission had been possessed, by which the genuineness and authenticity of the Greek and Roman authors have been established, the divine authority of the Christian revelation would have been as clear, as indépendent and as satisfactory as it was in the first age of its promulgation. Manuscripts of various parts of the New Testament, have successively existed from the beginning of the Christian æra, though the original copies have been long since lost; those manuscripts have been translated into various languages and preserved in ancient versions ; citations and references are to be found in ecclesiastical and theological writings from the commencement of Christianity, to the present time;

the laws of historic credibility and the principles of philological criticism which apply to secular facts and classic authors, are capable of a similar application to the records of Christian truth; and if all these sources of information, and means of inquiry be combined, the result will be precisely, what we are prepared to expect—(và ̃áλav Aóywʊ)“ the CERTAINTY of the things in which we have been instructed."

It is not requisite indeed, that every individual reader of the New Testament should go through this process of laborious inquiry, for the same reason that it is not necessary, he should go through all the proof that Cicero and Cæsar wrote the the books which bear their names, in order to understand their writings. It is quite sufficient, if the matter be capable of proof; and if it be as capable of proof now, at this remote period, as it was when the declaration of an ecclesiastical council announced it to the world. Now this, I

contend, is the case in reference to the Christian Scriptures. Documents and proofs altogether independent of synodical or conventional authority, establish those facts, which constitute the basis of the Christian System; and such seems to have been the wisdom of its divine Founder, that whatever be our interpretation of the doctrines, or whatever our views of the institutions of Christianity, the evidence of the facts remains unalterably the same. But to make the truth or authority of those facts dependent on the declaration of an opinion concerning them, is a total inversion of all the laws of just reasoning, and a virtual abandonment of the divinity of our religion. But in opposition to this self-contradictory argument, I observe,

FOURTHLY. That if the authority of the sacred canon rest on the supposed prior authority of the

Church of Rome, it will be impossible to prove the authority of that church from the sacred canon.The assumption involves in it the point to be proved; for according to the Romanists, we have no reason to believe that the New Testament is a divine revelation, independently of the declaration of the Church on the subject. But a derived and dependent authority can never be the source of that authority from which it is derived; and therefore to appeal to that derived authority in defence of it, is obviously futile and absurd. Were the advocates of popery consistent, they would never introduce citations from the New Testament to confirm either their principles or practices. They might employ them for the sake of convenient illustration when capable of supporting an ingenious construction in their favour; but they should indulge an equally convenient forgetfulness of their declarations, when not sufficiently flexible for their purpose. And indeed some views of their conduct and policy, prove that this hypothetical deduction is correctly drawn. Many defences and pleadings of Catholic writers refer to the Fathers, with as implicit a submission, as to the Scriptures; and the qualifications which they connect with their admission of the right of the laity to read the Scriptures, by which that right can be enlarged and contracted at pleasure, clearly indicate their views of its insufficiency.

It is natural then to inquire what is the basis of that authority which the Church of Rome assumes as her peculiar and exclusive prerogative-an authority which determines the canon of Scripture ---which gives to that canon all its sacredness and its claims-and, which, having thus created the rule, determines by the same authority, its meaning and its obligations? For this spiritual power still exists, and revels in its despotism. The un

derstandings and consciences of millions, are still in a state of unhallowed and quiescent prostration. Its tremendous pressure is still incumbent on the energies of free inquiry; and investing itself, with the attributes of Divinity, it still demands unresisting, implicit and universal subjection. The penetrating genius of Pascal, and the gentle etherial spirit of Fenelon, were alike awed by its mysterious power; and in opposition to the conclusions, to which their own vigorous and manly reasonings might have led them, they exhibited the melancholy spectacle of spiritual submission to an intangible, an irresponsible-an earthly tribunal! Whence then originated this authority, and on what is it founded? Prescriptive right, immemmorial usage, and general consent, are all insufficient to support this tremendous claim.— Such a domination must have higher credentials, if it pretend to an origin that is divine. In the sober estimate of a rational enquirer, these, either separatively or combined, can never justify the claim of infallibility; for when minutely examined, they amount to nothing more than an acknowledgment of the fact, that such an authority has existed in former times, and is still exercised over the faith and consciences of men. The utmost therefore that tradition can do, is, to prove the antiquity of the claim, not to support it.

Are the Scriptures referred to? It has already been made to appear that this reference involves in it a principle, which at once undermines the foundation of that authority for which they contend. For such an appeal admits the right of inquiry, as belonging to those with whom they contend. It also concedes the existance of a standard, by which to guide and regulate their respective inquiries. But if there be such a standard, then that, concerning which the inquiry is