by which genuine Scripture, containing the word of God, and the real expression of the divine will, may be distinguished from what is spurious, and barely human. Unless such a rule can be found, how are we to proceed? how are we to ascertain the current coin of the kingdom, without clear and unerring marks, by which we are to discern what possesses real value from what is base? In human concerns, we are not satisfied to be abandoned to hazard, to be guided by the opinions of individuals, however respectable and eminent, when the affair is of the utmost moment, when the consequences are irreparable, and when opinions are discordant.

If a question should arise, whether a point which deeply interests all the members of a political community, be or be not a law of the land, the course to be pursued is extremely clear. When neither the learned in the law, nor the appointed judges and guardians of right, can come to any certain conclusion, recourse must be had to the supreme power of the state; and nothing can set the question at rest, but a legislative enactment, or an authoritative declaration. If such a resource is offered to us in deciding human controversies, are we to be left destitute in a business of all others the most important, when we are inquiring, which are those books that convey the will of the Almighty, as communicated to man? If temporal sovereigns make known their

orders to their subjects, without danger of deception, by the appointment of a regular series of subordinate officers, is the will of the Almighty to be left in a state of obscurity, without any mark, by which a book, containing the positive divine law, can be distinguished from a spurious and fabricated production? This cannot be; it is not consistent with the general analogy of government, whether ecclesiastical or civil; it is opposed to the usual ways of Providence; it is contrary to the positive declarations of our Redeemer, to which we have so often referred, and by which he stands pledged to protect his church from all error, and to lead her into all truth. For if there existed no mode of ascertaining the authenticity and inspiration of the sacred Scriptures, or if it could be proved that the Catholic church has proposed to the faithful a book, or any part of a book, as true Scripture, which could be shewn evidently not to be the word of God, that would amount to a substantial demonstration that she has led the faithful into error and deception. But as long as we can rely on the words of our Redeemer, that event can never take place: eternal truth is incapable of any deceit; the declarations of God cannot be falsified. We are therefore constrained, in this as in all other discussions relating to faith, to listen to the voice that descends from above; to obey that authority which Christ himself established. There is no other method

under the sun, of bringing religious disputes to a close, or determining what is or what is not Scripture, but by listening to the voice of that church, founded by our Redeemer; which we have proved to be the church in communion with the See of Rome. This consideration had such a weight on the mind of the great St. Augustine, that he openly declares, that he would not believe the gospel, were he not induced to do it by the AUTHORITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH1.

The catechist and the Protestant of every description, by depriving himself of this guide, which led St. Augustine to believe the gospel, and consequently to admit every part of the canonical Scriptures, has thrown away the only means by which the faithful can be enabled, not only to distinguish the apocryphal from the sacred writings, but to ascertain the authenticity and inspiration of any single part. In fact, what possible rule can the Protestant produce, by which he can, with any certainty, pronounce that any book whatever contains the written word of God? The bible itself, and none of the books can depose in their own favour: all laws, all precepts, all external injunctions, must emanate from some authority the resource of the private spirit is too ridiculous to be named: the authority and tradition of the Catholic church are mentioned

by Protestants, only to be held up to scorn. Where, therefore, are the marks by which the Protestant is enabled to discern the true Scripture from that which is spurious? Is internal evidence, or a critical discrimination of style, to be alleged as a ground of choice, in determining the relative merits of performances, in this important inquiry? That surely is a very equivocal mark, and subjects the inquirer to the utmost degree of uncertainty and delusion. There were false gospels and false epistles circulated among the faithful at the earliest period of Christianity: these performances, which for a time had many admirers, were suppressed by the authority of the primitive pastors. Luther, the great patriarch of "reform," exploded the Epistle of St. James in terms of indignant contempt1: the manner in which he spoke of the Ecclesiastes, was so extremely childish, and so marked with ribaldry, that even his intimate friends were disgusted2: still both these books are held as sacred and canonical by other Protestants. The private judgment, therefore, of any individual, grounded on internal evidence, must be held a very insecure basis, on which we are to form a clear and decided opinion on a business of such transcendant importance. Is external evidence,

Rebenstock, tom. 2. Colloq. p. 100, et seq.

or the testimony of mankind, by which we ascribe human performances to their reputed authors, a sufficient ground to admit the authority of inspired writings? External evidence may assuredly determine the authenticity of a work; but what is to enable us to ascertain the doubtful question as to its inspiration, and consequent authority? That is a point of a higher order. Here then we may repeat St. Augustine's declaration: "I would not believe the gospel, were I not induced to do it by the authority of the Catholic church." In fact, set aside the authority of the Catholic church, and you have - no dependence left, but on the various and discordant opinions of individuals; which may be as numerous as the persons who bestow any attention on the subject. By the unalterable order of human events, and by the usual progress of infidelity, doubts and discussions concerning the authenticity and inspiration of some books of the Scripture, may terminate in the fatal purpose of rejecting the whole sacred volume, as a mere human performance. The history of learning furnishes but too many instances of the fatal effects of this grand Protestant principle, by which the existence and the meaning of the sacred Scripture are subjected to private judgment. On the contrary, when the authority of the Catholic church is admitted, the voice of our Redeemer is obeyed; order is maintained; the