tinct. But we will merely observe, that if we are to take them as ordinary 'human historians,' and to accept their narratives just as we should those of other parties, writing, like them, many years after the occurrences related took place, we must necessarily look upon every sentence, every word, in fact, of these five or six passages, as being more or less uncertain. The inspiration of the writers being put out of view, there is not a word of these few brief passages, of the accuracy of which we can feel positively assured. What really occurred may have been, by the omission or addition of a word or two, materially altered. Upon such a basis as this, therefore, it is idle to think of resting so vast an edifice as an infallible tribunal. As well might we attempt to erect St. Peter's on a quicksand. The attempt utterly fails.

The result, then, is as follows: The Romanist first takes part with the sceptic in denying the possibility of establishing the divine inspiration of the scriptures: He then endeavours to rear up an infallible and divinely-commissioned authority in the room of the scriptures, but upon no better foundation than a few brief sentences of two or three mere historians,' who, of course, might err,-might be misinformed, or might misconstrue what they heard. This attempt necessarily fails; and having previously declared it impossible to ascertain the inspiration of the Scriptures without the aid of the Church, the poor Romanist is necessarily left, if he conducts the inquiry with logical precision, without any escape from the gulph of infidelity.

XI.

THE PROTESTANT RULE OF FAITH.

THE GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE

HOLY SCRIPTURES.

PROCEEDING with the consideration of Dr. Wiseman's objections to the Scriptures as a Rule of Faith, we are now to enter upon the second point,-that the difficulties raised by Dr. W. in the way of an ordinary and unlearned person, are not of that serious or insurmountable character which he would have us to suppose. And perhaps it will be the most satisfactory method, if we follow, step by step, Dr. W.'s own argument.

His first difficulty, as he himself states it, is this: that before any one can even commence the examination of that rule, which his church proposes to him, he must have satisfied himself, that all those books or writings, which are gathered together in that volume, are really the genuine works of those whose names they bear; and that no such genuine work has been excluded, so that the rule be perfect

and entire.' 1 In other words, he must be convinced that the scriptures are authentic documents, and that the canon has been so settled as to be clear and indisputable. Now we trust that there will be little difficulty in shewing, that the proofs and evidences on these points are so clear, so abundant, and so accessible, as to offer to every candid inquirer absolute demonstration, and that, by means of an investigation, which need be neither laborious nor prolonged.

This investigation, however, concerns two distinct questions. We have the Hebrew scriptures, or the books of Moses and the prophets, which were entrusted to the Jewish church, and which, under God's providence, were kept entire and pure from error by that church. And we have also the Greek scriptures, or the books of the New Testament, of which the Jewish people never had charge, but which were deposited with the Christian church, and which that church, like the Jewish, has preserved whole and unconfounded with any spurious productions. This point, indeed, is worthy of remark, and ought to call for our grateful admiration. Both the Jewish church and the Christian have fallen into great sins and backslidings; but still that one peculiar duty which God put upon them, he took care that they should accurately fulfil. To the Jews 6 were committed the oracles of God,' so far as the Hebrew prophets had declared those oracles; and to the Christian church, the like records concerning the gospel. The Jewish church even denied and crucified the Lord of glory, and was driven into exile and slavery for that crime;-but still this especial duty

1 Wiseman's Second Lecture, p. 32.

of bearing witness to the holy oracles' was never forgotten, and to this hour that witness is borne, and those oracles are preserved, even in the midst of the most total apostacy and rejection of the gospel. The ancient Christian churches, too, as first planted at Jerusalem, at Antioch, and at Rome, have fallen into fearful error and apostacy; but still the duty of bearing witness to the oracles committed to them is in force, and that witness they do accordingly bear. Thus the Jewish church is perfectly clear and unfaltering in her testimony to the Jewish scriptures; and the Christian churches, including even Rome herself, bear equally unhesitating witness to the Christian records. Each, in its own department, fully discharges the duty laid upon it. And thus it comes to pass, that the only apocryphal or doubtful writings which at all interfere with the clearness of this testimony, are those which Rome has endeavoured to add, not to her own sacred deposit, the Christian records, but to those of the Jews,-to those with which, as keeper, she had no concern. In her own department,-the care of the books of the New Testament,-even Rome herself was not permitted to go astray; but in that in which she had no office or function, the care of the Hebrew scriptures, she was left to follow her own devices, and to do what mischief she could. But let it be always remembered, that the Jews, the keepers of the Hebrew scriptures, are perfectly decided in their evidence as to what those scriptures comprehend; and the Christian churches, which have the charge of the New Testament, are equally agreed on the canon of that part of holy writ. The only dispute has arisen from the church of Rome having gone out of

its own province, and assumed the right of adding to the canon of the Jewish scriptures, with the settlement of which she had nothing whatever to do.

Having made this remark in passing, we will now come to the main subject. Probably it will be the best course to take each of these two series by itself, and to begin with the Greek scriptures, the books of the New Testament. Dr. Wiseman's objection is,that great difficulties meet the inquirer who wishes to ascertain, 1st. that all these books or writings are really the genuine works of those whose names they bear; and, 2nd. that nothing has been omitted or excluded which ought by right to form part of the series.

To this question we will now address ourselves. And first, let us bear in mind the universal experience of mankind, as to the difficulty, or rather the impossibility, of gaining credence and establishment for a forged work, especially if the matter contained in that work be of any importance or interest to mankind generally. We are told that David Hume, about a century ago, wrote and published a History of England. There is no one, of course, now living, who can at all attest the fact, from his own knowledge, that this very man Hume did write that identical book; and yet the man who refused to believe that fact would be justly considered as little better than a fool. And why? First, because the book has been universally received, in our own time, and in that of our fathers, as that of the author whose name it bears; and, seoondly, because an immense body of corroborative evidence is accessible, consisting of the testimonies of various persons of that and succeeding periods, all testifying to the fact, that