had a full knowledge of the doctrines of Christ, although they had never seen a copy of the Scriptures; and then, their faith was found to agree with that of the persons who, belonging to the great, or universal, or Catholic body, had also the Scriptures.

From these Facts we draw the following conclusions:

1. That Christ did not establish as the mode of knowing his doctrines, the publication of Bibles, and leaving to individuals to interpret them as they thought fit; or-what is but a modification of the same-establish those individuals as judges, to know from Bible-reading whether the teacher gave them his doctrine or not.

2. That he sent teachers, to whom the people were to listen, and from whom and upon whose authority, the people were to receive his doctrine.

3. That this authority of their's was approved by miracles, and therefore had the sanction of heaven.

4. That it was by its exercise nations were converted and truth preserved.

5. That it is only by its recognition we can know what Scripture contains the Word of God.

6. That without its recognition we have no certain knowledge that the New Testament contains the doctrines of Christ.

7. That if it be a fallible tribunal in what concerns faith, we have no certainty that the books which we receive are inspired, and [that] those which we reject are not God's Word.

8. Therefore: if the great body of the teachers of the Church cannot give us with infallible certainty the doctrines of Christ, we have no certainty that these doctrines are contained in the New Testament, or are now taught any where in the world.

§ 3.

We have now seen general considerations founded upon facts, which lead us to conconclude: (1.) That we cannot have a certainty of what God has taught, without having a witness who will give us with infallible certainty the doctrine which he revealed. (2.) That we cannot have faith, without such infallible testimony. And (3.) That the facts of the establishment of Christianity evidently suppose the public teachers of the Church, as a body, to be a witness of this description: and, [that] if they be not, we have no certainty that the Scripture is the Word of God; nor, have we any certainty that we now find the true doctrines of Christ.

In every human society, men not only make laws; but, however plain those laws

may be, a tribunal from which there is no appeal decides for all the members, what is the meaning of that law. And, although this tribunal is liable to error, society causes it to be regarded as infallible. Society cannot make it infallible; but it can have it, treated as if it were an infallible tribunal; otherwise, the law would be useless, if not mischievous. What would be thought of two litigants and their advocates who would come into court, and, each producing his law book, decide in his own favour, when the tribunal had [already] decided; the one whom the decision favoured, [remaining] satisfied [with this decision, while] the other party said: "The tribunal has erred; I know the law-the judges are but men, I will not abide by their decision?" How long could society hold together? Who would live in a country where the order of the court could not be enforced? Yet, we all agree, this tribunal might err. Still, the good of society requires that it must be treated as if infallible. Indeed, if it could be made infallible, it ought to be made so; and, in practice, it is made so. No one goes before such a tribunal merely for advice or instruction: recourse is had to it for authoritative decision. To go for advice, or instruction, would be giving it no power to effect the object of its creation: because, you might be unwilling to follow the advice, and might not consider the instruction good, nor the evidence sufficient. The Supreme Court of the United States, generally publishes the grounds of its decisions; but the judge never asks the parties whether they consider those grounds sufficient. The decision is made by authority of the court, and not by the admission of the parties. Common sense, peace, truth, justice,-the public good require this.

We have seen that the contests as to what is the meaning of passages of the Bible are as numerous as the contests about the meaning of the law of our States; and a tribunal is as necessary to give the one with accuracy and certainty, as to give the other. And, if it be important to know what God teaches, as it unquestionably is, it is important that the tribunal [appointed] to tell [us] what he teaches, should not err. Why are the courts of society fallible? Because society, from which they derive their power, and by which they are erected, could not gift them with infallibility. The tribunal of the Church is erected by God, who is all-powerful. It derives its commission to teach from him who could make it infallible; and his wisdom shows the necessity of doing what his power can effect. He must, then, have made the tribunal of the Church infallible

in testifying what he has taught. Single individuals are liable to err in their decision; but the tribunal is infallible: not, because composed of a number of infallible individuals, but because Almighty wisdom saw the necessity, and Almighty power can effect the great object. Now, this tribunal consists of the Church, i. e. of the teaching portion which succeeds to the Apostles-viz: the Bishop of Rome, and the great majority of Bishops in his communion. These successors of the Apostles have always formed this tribunal. Infallibility is then not a raising of these individuals as tyrants over their brethren, but the Providence of God securing that their united testimony shall give us a certain knowledge of what God has proposed to us as doctrine of faith.

We shall conclude this portion of our remarks by stating another fact, which we could prove, but which might not be so easily admitted by our opponents as those unquestionable ones which we laid down before-viz: [That] from the beginning the great body of Christians testified that this Tribunal was Infallible. Our correspondent will then perceive that the doctrine of Infallibility goes beyond what he would originally have had no difficulty in granting, viz: that the authority of the Church was very high as a witness. But he appeared to reserve to himself the right of pronouncing upon the sufficiency of the evidence in every case. This made him the judge; and the Church but a fallible witness. But the doctrine is that the Church is an infallible, authoritative tribunal, which herself examines and decides upon the evidence, and then declares to him the fact, by the authority of God, who made her infallible, and who gave to her the authority. But this authority extends only to matters which have been revealed by God: it does not reach to mere concerns of this world.

Let us take another view of facts:

1. There was a Christian Church before there was a Christian Bible.

2. That Church was organized, and perfeet, and widely spread abroad, before one particle of the Christian Bible was written. 3. It was upon the authoritative testimony of that Church that the Bible was received.

4. If that testimony had not been given, no person could have any certainty that this book, which was selected from several scattered writings, contained the Revelation of God to man.

Whence we conclude:-If that Church was not infallibly correct in giving this decision and testimony, we have no infallibly certain foundation for our Faith. Therefore, if

the Church was not infallible, the Christian Scriptures are not a certain Rule of Faith. And, when Luther asserts that the Epistle of St. James is a book of no authority, and does not contain the Word of God, perhaps he is right; and the Church of England, which receives it as the Word of God, perhaps, is in error. How are we to know which we should believe? The Presbyterian Church gives to us, as the Word of God, the seventh verse of the fifth chapter of the first Epistle of St. John;* and a great many learned men, and whole congregations, tell us this is an impudent forgery which contradicts the Word of God. How are we to know which of them to believe? The Roman Catholic and other Churches tell us that, of the Old Testament, Baruch, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the two books of the Machabees, contain the Word of God; the Church of England and several others tell us they are apocryphal and of no authority. Which are we to believe?

In the days of St. Jerome, that is, about fourteen hundred years ago, several persons rejected the last chapter of the Gospel of St. Mark; and now, it is received; but an entire sentence which it then contained has been omitted. Upon what ground was this chapter received? Upon what ground was this sentence omitted? In the same age, and the previous one, were to be found several copies of the Gospel of St. Luke, which omitted two entire verses of the twentysecond chapter, and one word of the nineteenth chapter, all which are most important, and are in all the modern Bibles. By what authority were they introduced? Which held the true doctrine, they who omitted, or they who inserted those passages?

The principal portion of the eighth chapter of the Gospel of St. John, as now found in the Protestant and Catholic versions, is said to have been taken from an old and re

* And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.-1 Ep. John, v. 7.

(† Ultimum caput Marci, tempore B. Hieronymi non fuisse ab omnibus receptum ut canonicum, patet ex Ep ad Hebidiam. quæst. 3. Caussa dubitationis erat, propter quædam verba apocrypha, quae in isto ultimo capite inserta erant, ut patet ex Hieronymo, lib. 2, con. Pelag. ante medium. Hæc enim inserta erant verba, que satis aperte Manichæismum redolent. Et illi, satisfaciebant, dicentes, seculum istud iniquitatis et mundos spiritus veram Dei apprehendi virtutem,idcirco, incredulitatis substantia est, quæ non sinit per imjam nunc revela justitiam tuam. Et capite 22. Lucæ, quidam in dubium revocant historiam illam de sudore CHRISTI sanguineo, et angelica apparitione, et consolatione, ut Hilarius testatur lib. 10 de Trin. et Hieron. lib. 2, con. Pelag. Caussa quæ hos permovit, ea fuit, ne CHRISTO infirmitatem et animi dolorem tribuere viderentur. Qua etiam de caussa, quosdam Catholicos, prapostero zelo e suis codicibus, ex illis verbis. Luc. 19. Videns civitatem flevit superillam, abrasisse verbum "fievit," testatur Epiphan. in "Ancorato." Bellarm. de Verb. Dei. lib. 1, cap. xvi.]

jected Gospel, which no one now pretends to be the Word of God.* How are we to know whether this is God's Word, or a fable? Marcion, Arius, Luther, Brentius, Kemnitz, and their followers all assert that St. Paul never wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews, and that it does not contain the Word of God. Calvin doubts if it was written by St. Paul, but asserts that it does contain the Word of God, and is a part of Holy Scripture; and that it is an error in the Lutherans to reject this canonical book. The Church of England puts it into her canon. Which of these are we to believe? Luther and his early adherents asserted that the Epistle of Jude was undoubtedly-not the Word of God. He also rejects the first Epistle of St. Peter, but receives the second, and has great doubts as to whether the second and third Epistles of St. John contain the Word of God. Calvin receives the two of Peter, the three of John, and that of Jude, as undoubtedly the Word of God. So, too, does the English Church. Which are we to follow? The Marcionists, the Alogians, the Theodotians, rejected the Apocalypse, or Revelation of St. John, as a forgery, and not containing the Word of God. Luther, in his first preface, rejects it as not the Word of God, nor the production of an Apostle. Brentius and Kemnitz hold with these; but, in his second preface, Luther doubts upon the subject. Calvin has no doubt whatever: he is certain that it is the Word of God; and so are the Centuriators of Magdeburgh, who were Lutherans: and so is the Church of England, which received it as one of which there never was question. Yet, strange as it might seem, there is not in the entire Canon a book upon which there was longer and more serious question in the Church. Now, take away an infallible tribunal which is to give us a decision, and what are we to do? How is a question to be decided, where the litigants not only cannot agree in the interpretation of the book which contains the Law, but cannot even agree as to the precise passages which are of authority? Of what value is a book said to be authority upon any subject, which book has been collected from amongst many rejected documents, which were at one time in equal circulation

[*The Gospel used by the Nazarene and Ebionite heretics called the "Gospel according to the Hebrews."]

["Equal circulation." These words are not to be taken strictly, or in the sense that the writings, finally rejected by the Church, were at any time of equal authority in the whole Church, with those books declared canonical by the Holy Council of Trent. Notwithstanding the doubts of some particular Churches, or of some learned Christians, and even doctors in the first ages, the great current of tradition in the Church, from the Apostolic times, was in favor of the true canon now received. To this tradition, the Third Council of

with the rejected portions: and, the collectors of which book, neither had any authority to make the collection, nor any author to point out with certainty what was a document of truth, and what was a fabulous composition? Such a collection could be no evidence-no authority.

The Church existed before the Scriptures. The Church had authority to teach before the Scripture was written. The Church did teach before the Scripture was written. If the Church was not then Infallible, she might have taught error for true doctrine. When the Scripture was written, it was by the teaching of the Church that writing which contained the Word of God was separated from that which did not contain it. If the Church was not infallible in distinguishing the truth from the error, she might have given to us error for truth. If we do not follow the distinction of the Church, we, who are not infallible, may take what is not God's Word, for that which really is his Word. Thus, if the Church is not infallible, we have no certainty what God has taught we cannot know Scripture from. foolish and blasphemous forgery.

To this reasoning, we humbly apprehend, there can be no alternative by which the conclusion can be combated, except by saying that every individual will infallibly discover that which the whole body of the Church cannot. Thus, instead of having an aggregate body infallible, we shall have every individual infallible. And those infallible individuals will have a thousand contradictions, and all these contradictions will be true. Now, upon our doctrine, we have an aggregate body, which has existed in unbroken succession from the days of Christ to the present day, testifying to us with infallible and authoritative certainty what are the doctrines which he taught, and in what books they may be found, and what is the meaning of the doubtful and obscure passages. And this body has not, in any one of those cases, during eighteen centuries, contradicted its testimony upon any of those heads. We further humbly apprehend, that we have no choice left between embracing this doctrine, and asserting-that we cannot now know with any certainty what are the doctrines of Christ, nor where they are to be found.

Carthage (A.D. 397) appealed, in giving the catalogue of the holy books; and by the same tradition were guided Innocent I, and the Roman Council held under Gelasius. In accordance with this tradition, perpetual in the Church of God, the Council of Trent declared and fixed for ever the canon of the Holy Scriptures.

Decree of the Third Council of Carthage. Item placuit, ut præter Scripturas canonicas, nihil in ecclesia legatur sub nomine divinarum Scripturarum. Sunt autem canonicæ Scripturæ, Genesis, Exo

your ephemeral omnipotence? Are you not the creatures whom the law has formed? Are we not the source of that power from which the law emanates? And yet, you tell us that we shall not plead that law before you, who are equally subject to it as the meanest of those over whom you are elevated, until you shall have examined and told us whether you will recognize the fact that it is the law of the Nation. But, mark! what is more intolerable than your proud and insolent monopoly of the gifts which Heaven has freely bestowed upon us all! You vouchsafe now to tell us that this book contains the law. Admirable condescension! As if it was not equally law, before you said so! Surely, you will not pretend that it was your nod which made it binding? No. If you never saw it, still it would be law. But, we must not interpret it, except according to your good will and pleasure! What! Have we not eyes to read as you have? Are we more dull than you are? Will you deny to us what God has given to us, perhaps with less stinted measure than to yourselves intellect? So forsooth-it is law; but you alone are to expound its meaning, and to apply it to our several cases. Why then was it printed? Why are we called upon to read it? Is it to be to us a closed book; a sealed volume! You insult the Legislature, by supposing they cannot write or enact laws which can be understood by those for whom they are to be a code of instruction. You arrogate to yourself a dominion which we will not submit to; a power to say that the law means what you please to say is its meaning, and, that we must submit to your caprices. We want no well-paid arrogance such as yours, to intervene between a Congress which writes plain English, and a people to whom that language is most fami

liar.

Your law-craft has created artificial difficulties. We can understand the Law of God. Shall we be unable to understand the laws of men who live amongst us? The despotic arrogance of Romish Infallibility has been annihilated-why should yours survive? The principles of Popery and all Courts of Law are the same. One has fall en the other must follow. The march of mind has commenced. The mariner's compass, and the art of printing, the Reformation and the blow-pipe, calorics and gases were unknown to the ancients. Despotism must shrink back to its congenial darkness; Truth is effulgent-Gothic barbarism must give way. Leave those seats, from which you darted the lightning of your threats, and hurled the thunder of your despotism! Man must be free."

What would be thought of us, should we

make such an address to the Supreme Court of the United States of America? Are our citizens enslaved?

§ 4.

WE now take up another view of this subject. It is possible to discover the Doctrine of Christ, or it is not. Shall we assert that it is impossible to discover now with certainty what the Saviour taught? Then we must say that Christianity has been lost. Revelation is now of no use. For, if we cannot know with certainty what God has revealed, of what use is it to know that he did formerly make a revelation? If we find it impossible to know with certainty what Christ has taught, Christianity has been lost. We assert that it is possible to know with certainty what our Saviour has taught. It must be by Testimony-not by any new Revelation. What is that testimony? The Roman Catholic says, it is the testimony of all Catholic nations informing us what has been preserved by all the Christian Churches, through all ages, since the death of the Saviour.

The Saparatist says this will not infallibly lead you to truth. Then we are without any certain and assured mode of knowing truth; and therefore, it is impossible to know for certain what is truth. We can only have conjecture: Faith is built upon certain knowledge, not upon conjecture: therefore we cannot have faith.

But another person says "we may receive with infallible certainty what the Bible contains; and thus we, by that blessed book, are brought to a certain knowledge, and to faith."

Our answer is very short. First-that any particular portion of that book contains God's Word, will, upon the principle of the separatists, depend only upon the opinion of one or more persons who are individually and collectively liable to err. And, nextthe meaning of the passages of that portion will depend only upon the opinion of one or more, who, taken individually or collectively, are liable to err. But opinion of persons liable to error, as well in their aggregate as in their individual capacity, is not a ground of certainty. Thus, there can be no Faith. In order, then, to be certain, we must either admit the whole body to be infallible in its testimony, or we must assert that a portion of that body is infallible. The Roman Catholic says that the whole body is infallible, but the authoritative testimony is given by the established tribunal in the name of the body. That Tribunal is the head and the great majority of the commissioned Teachers, speaking in the name of the whole body.