decision. And accordingly, among the Protestant writers of these days, we find it contended that the books of scripture can only manifest themselves as such, by their own internal evidence, or powerful influence upon the heart-or even by the internal testimony of the Spirit to their divinity. It is the language of Whitaker, that "our scriptures are to be acknowledged or received, not because the church has appointed or commanded so, but because they came from God; and that they came from God cannot be certainly known by the church, but from the Holy Ghost." Even Calvin says, "all must allow that there are in the scriptures manifest evidences of God speaking in them. The majesty of God in them will presently appear to every impartial examiner, which will extort our assent: So that they act preposterously who endeavour by any argument to beget a solid credit to the scriptures the word will never meet with credit in men's minds, till it be sealed by the internal testimony of the Spirit who wrote it." The following extracts by Jones, from certain Protestant confessions, are in the same strain. "These,"

say the compilers of the Dutch Confession, in 1566, "these we receive as the only sacred and canonical books, not because the church receives them as such, but because the Holy Spirit witnesseth to our consciences that they proceed from God, and themselves testify their authority." The Gallican church declares in their confession-not only that their general faith in scripture depends on the testimony of the Spirit, giving to the mind an internal persuasion of their truth; but that

hereby also they know the canonical from the apocryphal books. In like manner Dr Owen, in his Treatise on the Divine Original of Scripture, says "that the scriptures of the Old and New Testament do abundantly and uncontrollably manifest themselves to be the word of the living God; so that merely on the account of their own proposal to us, in the name and majesty of God as such, without the contribution of help or assistance from tradition, church, or any thing else without themselves, we are obliged, upon the penalty of eternal damnation, to receive them with that subjection of soul, which is due to the word of God. The authority of God shining in them, they afford unto us all the divine evidence of themselves, which God is willing to grant to us, or can be granted to us, or is any way needful for us." -Now, it must be quite obvious, that, if left to this test alone, we could not, by the single virtue of its application, determine on the rightful place in scripture, of all the thirty-nine books in the Old, and twenty-seven books in the New Testament. Let each individual be left to himself in this matter, with but this guidance only, and there could be no security, either that he admitted all that was right into his canon, or kept all that was wrong out of it. Richard Baxter seems to have thought more judiciously on this subject than some of his contemporaries. "For my part," says he, "I confess, I could never boast of any such testimony or light of the Spirit (nor reason neither) which, without human testimony, would have made me believe, that the book of Canticles is canonical

and written by Solomon, and the book of Wisdom apocryphal and written by Philo, &c. Nor could I have known all, or any historical books, such as Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, &c., to be written by divine inspiration, but by tradition," &c. There is obviously then a confusion of sentiment on this subject, and amongst theologians of highest name -a mixture of truth and error, which error, at the same time, is but truth misapplied, or a right principle carried to extravagance. By a right statement of the order of proof, we think, that the whole of this perplexity might be unravelled; and the question be adjusted in all its parts.

6. A book in scripture might be made the subject of two distinct affirmations-one belonging to the history of the book, the other to its character or properties. It may be said of it, that it has been regarded as scripture from the earliest times -and by those too most competent to judge of its title to a place in the collection. Or it may be said of it, that it has the power of so influencing the heart, and so convincing the judgment, both by its adaptations to human nature and by its harmonies with the general system of revealed truth -that, when these are fully manifested, they evince its authorship to be of God. These propositions are distinct; but they are not incompatible. And each may be tested by a proper and peculiar evidence of its own. The one, if true, is an historical truth; and the way to ascertain it is by an examination of the testimonies of ancient times. The other, if true, is an experimental truth; and to ascertain

it, it must be made the subject of a present and a personal trial. There can be no doubt, that he who has made full application of the first of these ordeals to the book in question, and with a satisfactory result, has a much firmer ground on which to rest its canonicity, than the authority of the church. On the arena of this investigation, the learned among the Protestants have held contest with the learned among the Catholics, and made full proof of their superiority. They have vindicated the high prerogatives of reason; and, appealing to the documents of past ages soundly and critically estimated, they can give a reason for their faith.

7. But the question still remains, can any rational origin be assigned for the faith of the common people?—or, is it by a rational process at all that they have been led to it? When they believe that the book of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament, or the Epistle to the Hebrews in the New is the word of God-do they not believe this at the telling of another, of the minister or of the church to which they belong? And at this rate, how can we get quit of authority and of blind assent in matters of religion? Do we not behold it of extensive influence in all denominations-and, whether among Protestants or Catholics, has it not a principal share in upnolding the Christianity of the world?

8. There is a principle which we have laboured to unfold in another place; and its application to our present question, is to us a new demonstra

See our Natural Theology, Book I., Chap. ii.

tion of its value. Long before the certainties of a subject have become so manifest as to compel our belief, its likelihoods may from the very first be such as to form a rightful claim upon our attention. To be convinced of the reality of this distinction, we have only to consider the state of mind at the outset of every successful inquiry issuing in full conviction, and the state of mind at the termination of it. Long anterior to the exhibition of those undoubted verities which command our faith, there might be that aspect of verisimilitude which calls for our most serious and respectful examination. Insomuch, that, with but the semblance of truth in any given proposition, with but this chance in its favour and consequent hazard of doing violence to some rightful demand on our faith or obedience by putting it away from us, we might incur the guilt of a moral unfairness by our summary rejection of it; and so the condemnation of our resulting unbelief, not because we refused our assent in opposition to the ultimate proofs but simply because we refused our attention to the incipient probabilities of the subject, might have a clear moral principle to rest upon it.

9. The church tells her people, that the book of Proverbs is an inspired composition. Whatever faith the people may give to this announcement, it is not yet faith upon evidence-nor, in this state, has it all the properties of that faith which is unto salvation. But here lies the difference between the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches. The former is satisfied with this blind and unhesitating faith on the part of its members, and seeks