even a vestige of any writing which professes to be the WORD OF GOD, except the book whose character we are now considering.

That book is an ancient collection of writings: of this there can be no doubt, since scarcely an heathen author exists, who does not in some way or other attest its antiquity, or confirm its statements.

These writings have ever been received and valued, by those who possessed them, as the ORACLES OF GOD. And their existence and their pretensions, having been at all times known, no refutation of those pretensions has ever been furnished by those, who, if they knew their falsehood, assuredly would have made it known to others.

These writings uniformly assert the divine inspiration of their authors. They bear mutual witness to each other, and they appeal also to miraculous proofs of divine authority;-which appeal, though made in the face of multitudes of opposers, has never yet been met. They also appeal to a second evidence, that of prophecy, with which it is undeniable that their pages are filled, and which of itself furnishes a proof which is altogether irrefragable.

Lastly, they are consistent with themselves, and with the character they claim. They present to us views of God, so sublime and so befitting, that none but God himself could have afforded them. They offer us also a code of morals altogether casting shame upon the highest efforts of human moralists and philosophers, and the adoption of which by mankind at large would of itself establish heaven upon the earth, a code, too, which could no more have been invented or promulgated by a set of impostors and cheats, than devout aspirations could arise from

a fallen spirit. And, finally, they depict man himself as he really is, a task which the experience of six thousand years has abundantly shewn to be wholly beyond man's own power. They shew him his true character and condition; explain his malady; point out the only remedy, and then place within his reach the means of obtaining the best of all evidence, that of his own heart, and soul, and affections. They elevate man, wherever they are received and obeyed, to the highest degree of virtue and happiness which his nature will admit; while their rejection involves a correlative degree of misery and debasement.

Every proof, therefore, and every evidence, short of a visible or audible miracle, worked for every individual man, is already afforded to us. More distinct or positive assurance, except God should himself speak from heaven to each sinner personally, we could not have. If God has spoken to man, assuredly he has spoken to some purpose. Knowing the wants of the human race, he would not stoop from heaven to address them, without applying to those wants exactly the remedy that was most suitable.

Take, then, this book to your own closet, remembering that every possible external proof of its divine origin has been already afforded; and see if you do not find all these proofs abundantly reinforced, by the admirable adaptation of its contents to your own personal wants and desires. No one ever entered upon a candid examination of the Scriptures, in this point of view, and with prayer for the Holy Spirit's guidance, without arriving at a sure conviction, and that upon the best grounds, of their Divine Inspira

tion.

XIII.

THE TWO RULES OF FAITH COMPARED.

THE SCRIPTURES, OR THE CHURCH.'

WE have now considered, each in its turn, the Romish and the Protestant rules of faith. We have endeavoured to shew, that an opposition to the reception of the scriptures as the sole rule, leads to infidelity; -and that the difficulties suggested by Dr. Wiseman are not insuperable. But we are now to propose a third objection,-to wit, that the Romish principle, 'that God has appointed HIS CHURCH the infallible and unfailing depository of all truth,'1 is beset with not only the same, but ten times greater difficulties than those which have been pointed out in the Protestant rule.

This evidently involves a comparison of the two rules of faith; and to conduct this impartially it will be necessary to pass again in review all Dr. Wiseman's objections to the use of Holy Scripture as a rule.

But it may be as well to ask, at starting, what is

1 Wiseman's First Lecture, p. 20.

the particular point concerning which the two systems are to be especially compared? It is that of inapplicability. Dr. Wiseman asserts that the Protestant rule is fraught with so many difficulties, as absolutely to render it in practice inapplicable, and void of fruit.' And we shall now endeavour to shew that this objection attaches in a much greater degree to the Romish rule, than to the Protestant. But this we must do by passing in review all the alleged 'difficulties,' arrayed by Dr. Wiseman against the use of scripture, and inquiring whether they do not apply far more decidedly to the rule and standard which he himself proposes.

Let us, then, to do full justice to Dr. Wiseman, recapitulate the difficulties' which he brings forward, and as far as possible in his own words.

Dr. Wiseman contends that the books of scripture cannot have been intended to constitute the rule of faith, for the following reasons:—

1. That the adoption of such a rule implies a necessity, on the part of every individual receiving it, of a tedious investigation into the genuineness and authenticity of those books:

2. Also, of a further inquiry, as to whether no other books of equal authority have been lost or excluded, so as to leave the rule incomplete :

3. Also, whether it be beyond doubt, that these books were not only the real productions of their alleged authors, but were actually given by divine inspiration.

And, considering that these three points include a vast field of inquiry and laborious investigation, the doctor asks, Can a rule, in the approach to which you must pass through such a labyrinth of difficul

6

U

ties, be that which God has given us as a guide to the poorest, the most illiterate, and the simplest of his creatures?

4. But the supposition that 'God gave his holy word to be the only rule of faith to all men,' leads to another difficulty; it must be translated into every language, that all men may have access to it.' Now, says Dr. Wiseman, ' are you aware of the difficulty of undertaking a translation of it? Whenever the attempt has been made in modern times; in the first instance it has generally failed, and even after many repeated attempts, it has proved unsatisfactory.' 'And we cannot suppose that God would stake the whole usefulness and value of his rule upon the private or particular abilities of man.'

5. Again, consider the paucity of copies of the Bible, until modern times. God could not mean, that for 1400 years man was to be without a guide; and that mankind should have to wait until human genius had given efficacy to it by its discoveries and inventions. Such cannot be the qualities or conditions of the rule.'

6. Lastly: To be the rule of faith, it cannot be sufficient that men should possess and read it, but they must surely be able to comprehend it. In fact, who ever heard of the propriety and wisdom of placing in men's hands a code, or rule, which it was impossible for the greater portion of them to comprehend?'

'Such, then,' says the doctor, are the difficulties regarding the application of this rule: a difficulty of procuring and preserving the proper sense of the original by correct translations; a difficulty of bringing these translations within the reach of all; a difficulty,