has then, as good a reason to give for his faith in the Koran, as any Romanist has to give for his faith in the bible, if his answer to the question, why do you believe?" is, Because my father, or the mosque, or the church me it was so. I would, indeed, be gratified to learn

6

from my of t, Dr. PURCELL, why he would not have had as good reason for believing in the Koran, as he has for being a Roman Catholic, on the ground of mere tradition, had he happened to have been born in Turkey? There must be an examination of the testimony, and perception of its truth, on its own intrinsic excellence; or, a conviction of its truth upon the evidence which it affords; else there is no reason in faith-it is mere credulity, or superstition.

The first, and characteristic difference, between the Protestant and the Roman Catholic, is this: the former believes the scriptures first, and the church afterwards; whereas, the latter believes the church first, and the scriptures afterwards. "But," says the bishop, "where does the Protestant get the bible to believe, but through the church?” And that first brings us to the proposition.

If any person hand me a book, and I read it, and believe it, does my faith in it necessarily rest upon him who hands it to me? And, yet, this is the gigantic strength of all that my opponent can say on this subject. It would be much more plausible, that the Protestants are indebted exclusively to the Roman Catholic church for the book, if Protestants believed all the Roman Catholic traditions, as well as the bible: but, while we reject the apocrypha, and the traditions of popery, and receive the bible only, this fact will answer a thousand volumes of sophistry, in proof that our faith in the bible, rests not upon the authority of the church of Rome. The fact, that we reject her apocryphal bible and testament, with all other traditions of Roman Catholics, ancient and modern, resting solely upon her authority, and that we retain the bible, (one version of which she has,) is incontestable proof, that we receive the bible on other authority than her traditions. Dispose of this fact who may, I affirm that my opponent never can! This illustrious and indisputable fact, places in bold relief the irrelevancy of his effort to show, that our faith in the bible, and his belief in Peter's Roman diocese, or in his being bishop of Rome, rest upon the same authority. That I must believe a letter on the authority of him who carries it, or a book on the authority of him who puts it in my hand, is another of the assumptions of the church of encroachments, resting upon Peter's having been bishop of Rome.

God created both the sun and the human eye, and he has adapted them to each other. He created the human understanding and the bible, and adapted them to each other. The honest student of nature needs no tradition to prove that man made not the sun; neither does the humble and candid student of the bible, need any witness from the bishops or church of Rome, that they did not make the bible. She is, indeed, a witness for the bible, and the true church, somewhere else existing than in her own communion: for, had it not been for her rivals, who, like Argus, have ever watched the sacred text, how it would have been interpolated and corrupted, her editions of the primitive fathers, and other books of which she was the sole or chief depository, abundantly declare. But, having fixed the date, not merely of the first pope, but of the grand schism which originated the Roman Catholic church. I hasten, with all despatch, to show that we have copies of the

bible more ancient than the grand schism, more ancient than the first pope: nay, that were written before the question of a supreme head began to be discussed; and which copies, in the form of transcription, have never been soiled by the fingers of a monk. I read but a few documents, as I have but little time for this subject; but I read them from a source of biblical authority, which, on these points, has not been, and, I presume, will not be, disputed; "Horne's Introduction: "Of the few manuscripts known to be extant, which contain the Greek Scriptures (that is, the Old Testament, according to the Septuagint version, and the New Testament) there are two which pre-eminently demand the attention of the Biblical student for their antiquity and intrinsic value, viz. The Alexandrian manuscript, which is preserved in the British museum, and the Vatican manuscript deposited in the library of the Vatican Palace at Rome.

1. The CODEX ALEXANDRINUS, or Alexandrian manuscripts, which is noted by the letter A in Wetstein's and Griesbach's critical editions of the New Testament, consists of four folio volumes; the three first contain the whole of the Old Testament, together with the Apocryphal books, and the fourth comprises the New Testament, the first epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, and the Apocryphal psalms ascribed to Solomon. In the New Testament there is wanting the beginning as far as Matth. xxv. 6. vuμros #pxetas; likewise from John vi. 50. to viii. 52. and from the 2 Cor. iv. 13. to xii. 7. [This manuscript is now preserved in the British museum, where it was deposited in 1753. It was sent as a present to king Charles I. from Cyrillus Lucaris, a native of Crete, and patriarch of Constantinople, by Sir Thomas Rowe, ambassador from England to the Grand Seignior, in the year 1628. Cyrillus brought it with him from Alexandria, where, probably, it was written. In a schedule annexed to it, he gives this account; that it was written, as tradition informed them, by Thecla, a noble Egyptian lady, about thirteen hundred years ago, a little after the council of Nice. Ho adds that the name of Thecla at the end of the book was erased; but that this was the case with other books of the christians, after christianity was extin. guished in Egypt by the Mohammedans: and that recent tradition records the fact of the laceration and erasure of Thecla's name. The proprietor of this manuscript, before it came into the hands of Cyrillus Lucaris, had written an Arabic subscription, expressing that this book was said to have been written with the pen of Thecla the martyr." [Introduction to the critical study and knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, by Thomas Hartwell Horne. Vol. II. pp. 66, 67.

But, this is not the only ante-papistical manuscript of the scripture,

now extant.

II. "THE CODEX VATICANUS, No. 1209, which Wetstein and Griesbach have both noted with the letter B, contests the palm of antiquity with the Alexandrian manuscript. No fac-simile of it has ever been published. The Roman edition of the Septuagint, printed in 1590, professes to exhibit the text of this manuscript; and in the preface to that edition it is stated to have been written before the year 387, i. e. towards the close of the 4th century: Montfaucon and Blanchini refer it to the 5th or 6th century, and Du Pin to the 7th century. Professor Hug has endeavored to shew that it was written in the early part of the fourth century; but, from the omission of the Eusebian xxx and TITAO, Bishop Marsh concludes with great probability, that it was written before the close of the fifth century. The Vatican manuscript is written on parch ment or vellum in uncial or capital letters, in three columns on each page, all of which are of the same size, except at the beginning of a book, and without any divisions of chapters, verses, or words, but with accents and spirits. The shape of the letters, and color of the ink, prove that it was written throughout by one and the same careful copyist." Id. ib. p. 74.

There are also versions older than the papacy, older than the vulgate, which is itself evidently older than the church of Rome.

"Syria being visited at a very early period by the preachers of the christian faith, several translations of the sacred volume were made into the language of that country. The most celebrated of these is the Peschito or Literal (Versio Simplex,) as it is usually called, on account of its very close adherence to the Hebrew text, from which it was immediately made. The most extravagant assertions have been advanced concerning its antiquity, some referring it to the

time of Solomon and Hiram, while others ascribe it to Asa, the priest of Samaritans, and a third class, to the apostle Thaddeus. This last tradition is received by the Syrian churches; but a more recent date is ascribed to it by modern biblical philologers. Bishop Walton, Carpzov, Leusden, Bishop Lowth, and Dr. Kennicott, fix its date to the first century; Bauer, and some other German critics, to the second or third century: Jahn fixes it at the latest, to the second century; De Rossi pronounces it to be very ancient, but does not specify any precise date. The most probable opinion is that of Michaelis, who ascribes it to the close of the first or to the earlier part of the second century, at which time the Syrian churches flourished most, and the christians at Edessa had a temple for divine worship erected after the model of that at Jerusalem: and it is not to be supposed that they would be without a version of the old Testament, the reading of which had been introduced by the apostles." Id. ib. pp. 187, 188. "An important accession to biblical literature was made a few years since, by the late learned and excellent Dr. Buchanan, to whose assiduous labors the British church in India is most deeply indebted: and who, in his progress among the Syrian churches and Jews of India, discovered and obtained nume rous ancient manuscripts of the scriptures, which are now deposited in the public library at Cambridge. One of these, which was discovered in a remote Syrian church near the mountains, is particularly valuable: it contains the old and new Testaments, engrossed with beautiful accuracy in the Estrangelo (or old Syriac,) character, on strong vellum, in large folio, and having three columns in a page. The words of every book are numbered: and the volume illuminated, but not after the European manner, the initial letters having no ornament. Though somewhat injured by time or neglect, the ink being in certain places obliterated, still the letters can, in general, be distinctly traced from the impress of the pen, or from the partial corrosion of the ink. The Syrian church assigns a high date to this manuscript, which in the opinion of Mr. Yeates, who has published a collation of the Pentateuch, was written about the seventh century. In looking over this manuscript, Dr. Buchanan found the very first emendation of the Hebrew text proposed by Dr. Kennicott, which doubtless is the true reading. Id. ib. p. 189.

Now, if we of the west of Europe, did receive the bible first from our Roman Catholic ancestors, I ask, would that make us dependent on their traditions alone for that book; any more than A. B., who lived on one of the seven mouths of the Nile, from which he supplies himself with water, was, on that account, absolutely dependent on the branch nearest his dwelling. Tell him that he is absolutely and alone dependent on it for water; and he will say, "No; but it is more convenient to supply myself from this stream: there are six other branches, from which I could supply myself, were it necessary for my life or comfort." So say we. We have Jews, Greeks, Armenians, and Protestants, from the first schism, A. D. 250, down to the present day; to say nothing of the ancient sceptics, Celsus, Porphyry, Julian, and others; and the ancient heretics, from whose writings, together with those of the infidel pagans, we could almost compile a New Testament, containing every thing read, not only since, but before the council of Laodicea. Du Pin himself acknowledges, that before that council, even in the third century, the scriptures were read as they are now. But, as for our independence of all Roman Catholic tradition, on this subject, many other proofs may be offered. The notorious and glorious fact, however, that Protestants have rejected the Roman Catholic rule of faith, apocrypha, traditions, and all, and even her own vulgate, as authentic, will for ever frown out of countenance, the groundless imputations of my too credulous opponent. [Time expired.]

My friends, have you ever seen the Anti-Christ? Look at him now (holding up a book.) This morning, I endeavored to shew that Ma

hommed was the fittest beast, to illustrate the mysterious prophecy; and I stated that many names (fourteen) could be found to correspond with the numbers 666. I now distinctly shew the page and book, where the computation is made and the last of these names is that of God himself. Cerdenus, a Greek writer, testifies that the name of Mahommed, as it was written in his time, will exactly spell the beast. On this subject, the reader who is not content with the article, AntiChrist, in Robinson's Calmet, may refer to Walmesley's General History of the Christian church, p. 250.

I do not give my own theory of the matter. There have been too many theorists already, to need more. I believe the beast was neither Luther, nor Mahommed, nor the pope. This is not an article of faith with me, nor with any Catholic. I respect the prophecy, but I await to decide the questions until 'Revelations' be what the term imports. I have here a history of the popes, in French, published, as the title page says" at the expense of the holy Father." Of course it is to be understood to be a hoax, and it deserves to be so considered. It tells a heap of lies about him; among others he was to be destroyed for ever in 1745. We may then write his epitaph.

I do not know on what grounds my friend asserted yesterday, that the 2nd. commandment was not a part of the Catholic rule of morals. I have already exhibited various catechisms, in use in the United States, in all of which, every word of the commandments is found. I suppose my friend overlooked the fact. I was glad to hear the gentle. man speak so highly of Michaelis. It showed his literary knowledge; and perhaps he may be interested in knowing that when but one edi. tion of his works could be obtained in Paris, in 1824, I procured it. Here it happens by a singular coincidence, unknown to him, to be. I invite him to examine in it the commandments, and he will find them fully and faithfully rendered in every Catholic Bible and Testament Will my friend tell the audience when the mazoretic points, without which the understanding of the Bible, if not impossible, is very diffi cult, were first introduced? and by whom?

Do all Bible readers know, as they ought to know, that in the old Hebrew Bible, there is no division of verses, much less of chapters? That a Roman Catholic cardinal had a good deal to do in making the division-and that they were not Protestants, but Rabbis, who suffixed the points which serve instead of vowels to Hebrew words, which have none but consonants alone; accordingly, as these vowels are placed, the Hebrew root may signify whatever the pointer pleases? The context of the oldest known meaning must be the only criterion. But I should like to know how one of our good, plain, homebred and industrious citizens can accomplish this task for himself. Even learned men made themselves ridiculous by their mazoretic fixtures and translations, and Luther, who was a good Catholic scholar-laughing at the absurdity of their versions of passages in the Bible-observed that "In the beginning the cuckoo ate the sparrow and the feathers,' would be just as good a translation of the first line of Genesis, as some of theirs. I will return to this subject.

It appears that Birds and Beasts of prey may represent peace, as well as cruelty. England then suffers no disparagement from her Lion, nor the United States, from her Eagle. The gentleman sug gests a dove for the latter. I have not the slightest objection, and if

the criticism I have heard be correct, the bird lately stamped on the new American coin resembles a chicken, more than a bird of prey. It looks as if it were more to be preyed upon than preying, and more sinned against than sinning.

Before I come to the very important point of the Bible, I must not forget to quote the testimony of the eloquent Southey, to shew what anti-Christs the popes were, and how they displayed their anti-christian spirit, in the conversion of Old England.

darkness.

"That Gregory, who was afterwards raised to the popedom, and is distinguished from succeeding popes of the same name (one alone excepted,) by the rank of saint, and from him, by the appellation of the Great, was one day led into the market-place at Rome, with a great concourse of persons, to look at a large importation of foreign merchandise, which had just arrived. Among other articles, there were some boys exposed for sale like cattle. There was nothing remarkable in this, for it was the custom every where in that age, and had been so from time immemorial: but he was struck by the appearance of the boys, their fine clear skins, the beauty of their flaxen or golden hair, and their ingenuous countenances; so that he asked from what country they came; and when he was told from the island of Britain, where the inhabitants in general were of that complexion and comeliness, he inquired if the people were christians, and sighed for compassion at hearing that they were in a state of Pagan From that day the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons became a favorite object with Gregory. Accordingly he despatched thither forty missionaries from a monastery, which he had founded at Rome. When, therefore, Augustine (who was their chief) and his companions landed in the isle of Thanet, they came not as obscure men, unprotected and unaccredited; but with recommendations from the kings of France, and as messengers from a potentate, whose spiritual authority was acknowledged and obeyed throughout that part of the world, to which the northern nations were accustomed to look as the seat of empire and superior civilization. They made their arrival known to Ethelbert, and requested an audience. They approached in procession, bearing a silver crucifix, and a portrait of our Savior, upon a banner adorned with gold, and chaunting the litany. The king welcomed them courteously, and ordered them to be seated: after which, Augustine stood up, and, through an interpreter, whom he had brought from France, delivered the purport of his mission, in a brief, but well ordered and impressive discourse. He was come to the king, and to that kingdom, he said, for their eternal good, a messenger of good tidings; offering to their acceptance perpetual happiness, here and hereafter, if they would accept his words. The Creator and Redeemer had opened the kingdom of heaven to the human race: for God so loved the world that he had sent into it his only son, as that son himself testified, to become a man among the children of men, and suffer death upon the cross, in atonement for their sins. That incarnate divinity had been made manifest by innumerable miracles. Christ had stilled the winds and waves, and walked upon the waters: he had healed diseases, and restored the dead to life: finally, he had risen from the dead himself, that we might rise again through him, and had ascended into heaven, that he might receive us there in his glory; and he would come again to judge both the quick and the dead. "Think not," he proceeded, "O most excellent king, that we are superstitious, because we have come from Rome into thy dominions, for the sake of the salvation of thee and of thy people; we have done this, being constrained by great love: for that which we desire, above all the pomps and delights of this world, is to have our fellow-creatures partakers with ourselves in the kingdom of heaven, &c." [Southey's Book of the Church. chap. iii. p. 23. etc.

My friend proposed a question, which he thought difficult. Why do I believe the bible? He said my answer would be, because the church believes it; and this, he says, is like Peter giving a character to Paul, and Paul to Peter. I reciprocate the question of the gentleman, and he says he believes in the church, because he believes in the bible. Thus the bible and church testify to each other in his theory, and the difficulty is infinitely greater for a Protestant, than for a Ca