differ from us. "The servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle towards all men." "The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God."

In all religious inquiries, it is of the first importance to ascertain the rule of judgment, and the standard of appeal. On this subject the Protes

tant asserts

66 THE EXCLUSIVE SUFFICIENCY OF "SCRIPTURE AS THE ONLY AUTHORITATIVE 66 RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE, IN MATTERS "OF RELIGION." The arguments by which the sole and exclusive authority is supported, are derived from the variety and combination of evidence, which establish the inspiration of the Scriptures in general, and of the New Testament in particular. The proofs of that inspiration are not dependent on a single insulated fact, but on a series of facts, tending to secure the highest degree of moral demonstration. The miraculous agency employed to accredit the early promulgation of Christian doctrine-the marvellous extent of that promulgation, by methods on the ordinary principles of human action, totally inadequate to account for it-the accomplishment of prophecies, too minute for human sagacity to have contrived, and too remote for human conjecture to have foreseen-thesublimity and grandeur of its peculiar discoveries, the adaptation of those discoveries to the moral condition of the world—and the pure benevolent and pacific tendency of all its principles and institutions-present, when distinctly examined, convincing proofs of the divinity of our holy religion: and in their aggregate, or collective result, must compel every candid and reflecting mind to pronounce the records of that religion, 66 THE WORD OF GOD THAT LIVETH AND ABIDETH 66 FOR EVER."

On these topics, there is no immediate contro

versy in the present discussion. But in order to invalidate the exclusive authority that in our view, naturally and necessarily arises from the inspiration of Scripture, the Romanists have recourse to the prior authority of their Church, as "the supreme judge of controversy, and the sacred rule of faith."*

"The Catholic judge in controversies," says Bishop Chaloner, "is the Church of God-from "whose decisions, no appeal is allowed, to the dead letter of Scripture," Hence they assert that, notwithstanding the proofs of inspiration already referred to, the fact of that inspiration, rests ultimately on the testimony of the Church of Rome and the infallibility of the church is involved in the admission, that the canonical books of Scripture are the word of God. For-they triumphantly inquire, who declared them canonical? Was it not the testimony of the Church that established their authority? Hence they infer that there previously existed a living, oracular, and infallible tribunal; and that to that tribunal we must appeal in order to determine the authority, and ascertain the sense of Scripture.‡ Now on this fallacious argument I remark―

.FIRST. That it was not the Church of Rome nor a council convened by the authority of the Church of Rome, that first ascertained and determined the canon of Scripture. The facts of the case, as far as they can be discovered from the historic records and traditionary fragments of the first and second centuries directly support this assertion. The writings of the New, like those of the Old Testament, were composed "at sundry times;" and local circumstances, affecting

*Bishop Hay's Sincere Christian, Vol. I. p. 184. + The Grounds of the Old Religion, p. 32. See Appendix. NOTE A.

individual churches, frequently occasioned their publication. Those of general interest, such as the gospels and the Catholic epistles, would be immediately and universally circulated; while the letters directed to particular churches, would naturally require a longer portion of time to se→ cure the same extent of circulation and authority in the Christian world. It is not difficult to ascertain the principle on which the primitive churches proceeded, in their admission of writings which were to be considered authoritative in all matters of religion. At an early period they were exposed to the intrusion of fictitious and unauthenticated accounts of the life of Christ, and the labours of his Apostles. This is evident from the introduction to the Gospel of St. Luke. (ch. i. 1-4.) The great inquiry, in order to determine what was apocryphal, and what might be entitled to the authority of a canon or rule* in sacred affairs, would invariably respect, the proof of the document in question being the composition of an inspired writer. If on this point its genuineness could be established, its divine authority would be immediately acknowledged. For, according to the declaration of St. Paul, "God had appointed the Apostles, FIRST in the church." 1 Cor. xii. 28. They possessed a peculiar and exclusive authority; and the manner in which their writings are referred to by the ear

* The word кavwv signifies a rule or standard. Schleusner and Parkhurst derive it from Kavvn (a cane,) obviously of Hebrew origin, [Job xxxviii. 3. Ezek. xi. 3, 5.] because the measuring rod was formerly made of cane. Hence the word is metaphorically applied, to Christian doctrine, Gal. vi. 16. dσoɩ T☎ kavovɩ τέτω ςοιχησεσιν as many as walk according to this rule." See also Phil. iii. 16. It is not improbable, that the word canon was applied to the sacred writings, in consequence of this apostolic use of it.

liest Fathers, clearly indicates the universal sentiment which prevailed in the primitive churches on this subject.* It is in fact, by a minute investigation of such references, and an accurate collation of them with the apostolic records, that the actual state of early opinions respecting the sacred canon has been so satisfactorily ascertained.†

it

There is one decisive proof, that neither the Church of Rome nor a council convoked by its authority, nor any other council whatever, in the first instance determined what were the canonical books, and that proof is the singular fact that we do not find any catalogue of such books in the decrees of the early general councils. How then, may be inquired, was the canon of the New Testament determined?" Determined," says Dr. Lardner, who was well qualified by his extensive researches into the earliest records of Christian antiquity to ascertain the fact-" not by the au"thority of councils; but the books of which it "consists, were known to be the writings of the apostles and evangelists, in the same way and "manner that we know the works of Cæsar, Cicero, Virgil, Horace, Tacitus, to be theirs ; "and the canon was formed upon the ground of an unanimous, or generally concurring testimony and tradition." Credibility. Vol. vi. p. 27. Hence I remark,

66

SECONDLY, That whatever church or council might publish a declaration concerning the canon

*"Besides our gospels, and the acts of the apostles, no Christian history, claiming to be written by an apostle, or apostolical man, is quoted within three hundred years after the birth of Christ, by any writer now extant or known; or if quoted, is not quoted without marks of censure and rejection." ~ Paley's Evidences. Vol. I. p. 294.

+ See Appendix. NOTE B.

of the New Testament,* the authority of that canon could not arise from the declaration itself, but from the antecedent evidence on which it was founded. This is too obvious to need either proof or illustration. All that a council, whether provincial or general could do in such circumstances, would be, to ascertain what was generally acknowledged by the churches they represented. Long before any such declaration was made, Origen, as cited by Eusebius, referred to the gospels and epistles of Paul, one of Peter and one of John, as universally received by the church.† "Before the middle of the second century," says Mosheim, "the greatest part of the books of the New Testament were read in every Christian society throughout the world, and received as a divine rule of faith and manners.-These sacred writings were carefully separated from several human compositions upon the same subject, either by some of the apostles themselves, who lived so long, or by their disciples and successors, who were spread abroad through all nations. We are well assured, (on the testimony of Eusebius) that the four gospels were collected during the life of St. John, and that the three first received the approbation of this divine apostle. And why may we not suppose that the other books of the New Testament were gathered together at the same time."+

The only advantage that could be secured by

*These reasonings are confined to the canon of the New Testament, because the canon of the Old Testament was settled long before the hierarchy of Rome existed. The reader will find some interesting details on this subject, in Prideaux's Connections. Vol. II. 394-405, 665-667.

+ He calls them αναντίρρητα and ομολογεμενα undisputed and acknowledged. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. iii. 24.

+ Mosheim's Ecol. Hist. Vol. I. p. 88.