These are the Scriptures which Leo XII. condemned; not the authorized and accredited translation, which Pius VI. had approved; hence, there is no contradiction.

The rules of the Index placed, it is true, certain restrictions upon the reading of the Scriptures, with regard to certain individuals, but only in those cases where the reading of the Scriptures might induce great injury to Christianity, because there was at that time a tendency on the part of a multitude of men to put their own interpretations on the word of God, of which a variety of contradictory and dangerous explanations were given. The Catholic Church, claiming a divinely constituted authority, thought herself justified in putting restrictions upon those who were going to turn Scripture, by the abuse they made of it, to their own perdition and the injury of society. The divisions spoken of in the primitive church are compared to those of the Protestant Churches: because one said, "I am of Paul," &c. therefore it is argued they are of the same character as the divisions among Protestants. Who can be deceived by such an argument? Do you not see that those were not divisions on points of faith? that Paul did not propose one doctrine, Apollos another, and Cephas another? The difference did not turn upon any one point of doctrine, but merely upon predilections for this or that preacher. How different were they from the divisions amongst the Protestants of these times, when one maintains as an article of faith what another rejects.

I laid down four points, which I shall endeavour to establish. First, that the Protestant rule is not substantiated by proofs either evident or presumptive; secondly, that it is contrary to express declarations of the Bible; thirdly, that it is denied in practice even by Protestants of every sect; and fourthly, that it is surrounded by many other insurmountable difficulties.

I have spoken with regard to the Protestant rule not being substantiated by evident proofs; I shall now speak to the presumptive arguments regarding it. And first I remark, that whatever presumptive arguments may be adduced in favour of the Protestant rule of faith, those arguments are not sufficient for the purpose for which they are alleged. They may shew that a certain doctrine. is very probable, and may go so far as to establish its moral certainty, but this is not sufficient for divine faith, which excludes all doubt whatever. For divine faith rests

not on presumptive argument, but exclusively upon the manifest word of God. Therefore, whatever presumptive arguments may be adduced, they alone will not be sufficient to support the Protestant rule of faith. But I maintain that presumptive argument is most decidedly against the Protestant rule.

Were it indeed the design of God that Scripture should be the only rule of Christian faith, surely our wise and benevolent Legislator would, in his instructions to his Apostles, have intimated that the written word was to be the only rule of faith; that therefore they must apply themselves to preserve in writing the divine communications which he had made to them; and it is inconceivable that the Apostles would have omitted to leave some record of such directions, both for the satisfaction of future ages, and for the greater authority of the written word. Now there is no presumption to this effect; but quite the contrary, as I will shew you-1st, from the language of Christ and his Apostles-2ndly, by the conduct of his Apostlesand, 3rdly, by the conduct of the primitive Christians.

First, with regard to the language which Christ held to his Apostles, we find that frequently, in his addresses to them, he speaks of their communicating the doctrines of revelation by preaching, but we find nothing whatever of the doctrine of faith being handed down by writing or Scripture, and still less by Scripture only. In the 10th chapter of Luke, verse 1st, it is said,

"After these things he appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place whither he himself would come." I quote from the Protestant Bible, as my adversary does from the Roman Catholic. In Mark xvi. verse 16,

Christ said

"Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

In Matt. xxviii. verse 19

"Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

It was by preaching therefore that Christ willed that his doctrines should be communicated; and there is no intimation given by him in Scripture that they should be written, and so conveyed to future times.

St. Paul, in like manner, in innumerable places refers to the commission given to him and the other Apostles, that they should preach the Gospel; but no intimation is given by Paul that he was to write. It was by hearing,

he tells us, that faith was to be received, not by the written word, addressed to the eye.

But I say,

"Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. have they not heard? Yes, verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the end of the world."-Rom. x. 17, 18.

Paul also, stating the nature of the commission he had received, for the performance of which he was to be held responsible, declares, in 1 Cor. ix. 16—

"For though I preach the Gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me if I preach not the Gospel." There is no mention here concerning the written word.

Now let us look in the second place at the conduct of the Apostles, and see if any of them hold out thereby a presumption in favour of the mode of communicating the doctrines of revelation by writing, or of their having been commanded by Christ to write, or any intimation to the effect that Scripture should be not only the rule of faith, but the only rule of faith, to the exclusion of all unwritten revelation.

If the Apostles were convinced that there was a divine injunction to write, would they not instantly have obeyed? Would they not without delay have applied themselves to the duty imposed upon them? Yet we find that Matthew, the first of the inspired writers of the New Testament, suffered eight whole years to elapse after the resurrection of Christ, before he penned his Gospel; nay, Le Clerc, a Protestant minister of great celebrity, maintains that it was not till twenty-eight years after the resurrection of Christ that he produced it. St. John, another of the Apostles, neglected to apply himself to the execution of the duty (if such it was) of writing the Gospel, for upwards of sixty years after the resurrection of Christ. Is there here any presumptive proof that the Apostles considered themselves bound to put into writing the truths to be handed down to future ages?

Indeed the presumptive arguments are to the contrary; for it is quite manifest that the Scriptures were the result of fortuitous circumstances, and that they were not penned by a divine injunction.-We are informed by Eusebius, in his 3rd book of Ecclesiastical History, c. 24, that Matthew penned his Gospel when he was about to leave Judea, in order to preach the faith to the Gentiles; that so he might leave behind him to the Jewish converts a testimony of the doctrines he had taught. It appears, therefore, not to have been written in fulfilment of the injunctions of his

Divine Master, but for other purposes.-Of Mark we find it related, in the 2nd book of Eusebius, c. 15, on the authority of Papias and of St. Clement of Alexandria, that he also wrote his Gospel, not to fulfil a divine command,but that, when he was about to go to take possession of his see at Alexandria, he might leave a testimony of the doctrines he had preached.-St. Luke tells us, at the commencement of his Gospel, the motives which induced him to write it-

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us which were from the beginning eye-witnesses, and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed."-St. Luke, chap. i. verse 1 to 5.

It was therefore to counteract the false and erroneous statements of other writers that St. Luke wrote his Gospel, and not to comply with a divine command.-St. John wrote his Gospel more than sixty years after the resurrection of Christ; and we are informed by Irenæus in his work against Heresies, b. iii. c. 11, and by St. Jerome, in the 9th chap. of his "Catalogue of Illustrious Men, that John wrote, not because HE deemed it incumbent upon him to do so for the sake of future ages, but only, at the earnest request of the Bishops of Asia that he would counteract the errors of Ebion and Cerinthus, who denied the divinity of Christ. Hence there is every reason to presume that, had not those errors existed, we should not have had the important Gospel of John. Is there here any reason to presume that the Gospels were written as the only rule of faith for future ages?

There is incontestable evidence to shew that the Epistles were, in like manner, the result of fortuitous circumstances. If we look into them we find that they were written to put an end to the contests between Jews and Gentiles; to repress scandals; to humble those who gloried in the works of the law; to correct various errors; to thank for the relief administered to the wants of their fellow Christians; to support those who were under affliction; to counsel those who were in difficulty; to reconcile those who were at variance. There is no intrinsic evidence whatever in the Epistles, any more than in the Gospels, that they were ordered by Christ to be written as the rule of faith, the only rule of faith for future ages.

Again, had the Apostles received such a commission.

from their Divine Master, would they have acted as they did? Of the twelve, would five only have discharged the duty imposed by him? Would two only have written Gospels? Would not the rest at least have subscribed to the writings of the others? Would they not have put their hand to the work, to testify their concurrence, and their common faith in the doctrines contained therein? It is inconceivable that the Apostles would have acted otherwise. Moreover, what, may it be presumed, would have been the form in which they would have handed down the revelations of Christ to coming times? Instead of one book of Scripture being unconnected with the other, instead of the abrupt transitions we meet with, instead of the obscurity which darkens the pages of the sacred volume, there is every reason to presume, at least, that we should have found Scripture written somewhat after the form of a catechism, clear, methodical and simple, in such a manner that the weakest capacity might ascertain the meaning of this only rule. Reason naturally leads us to conclude that this should have been the manner in which the Apostles would have written, if Christ had intended Scripture to be the only rule of faith, so that no revelation was to be handed down except by the medium of writing. But let us look attentively at the conduct of the Apostles. We find them going to disseminate the doctrines received from Christ; Andrew to the Scythians; Thomas to the Bactrians, Hyrcanians, Medes, and Parthians; Philip to the Phrygians; and others to many remote and barbarous nations. Did they take Bibles to distribute amongst their new converts? We find no proof whatever of it. We find merely that they preached the Gospel, not that they gave a single written copy. We read only that St. Bartholomew took with him a copy of St. Matthew's Gospel into India, for the purpose of making known the conformity of his doctrines with those of the other Apostles.

I know that an objection may be started here, which may perhaps have occurred to my friend Mr. Tottenham, for it was brought forward on a former occasion by Mr. Gordon; it was to this effect:-"How can we Catholics deny that the Apostles wrote in conformity with the command of Christ? Did not they write under the inspiration of the Spirit of God? Were they not, then, commanded to write?"This is an evasion of my argument. I maintain only that the Apostles were not ordered to write the

E