they have undergone any alterations, or whether we have them now as they proceeded from the pen of their authors.

Now these, I say, are legitimate subjects of inquiry, respecting the several parts of the volume of Sacred Scripture. They are more:-they are necessary:-they are essential. Such inquiries cannot be dispensed with, nor can they be pursued too far, or prosecuted with a too searching scrutiny; provided only they be undertaken, and followed up in a spirit of candour, and with an anxious desire, not to find support to any favourite system, but to ascertain the truth wherever it may be found to present itself; and a fixed determination to deal honestly with all the evidence, of whatever kind, which may form the subject of examination.

Let us then, brethren, now suppose these inquiries to have been made; and the result of them, in each instance, to be in the affirmative of the several propositions, to which they respectively refer: there will then arise one or two further inferences, out of the very nature of the contents of these books or writings themselves.

It will follow, first, that the lessons of truth or religion, taught in these Scriptures, are of DIVINE AUTHORITY. For these books contain, in some parts, prophecies or predictions of future events; and in other parts, accounts of the fulfilment of those prophecies or predictions, in many instances, after the lapse of centuries: which is proof sufficient, that those persons who delivered such prophecies, were possessed of a wisdom which could only have proceeded from God. And, therefore, whatever lessons of instruction or doctrines they teach us, these doctrines being themselves wise and holy, must have been delivered under a divine sanction, and, therefore, possess divine authority. In like manner these books contain accounts of miracles, or the performance of works which imply a suspension of the ordinary

laws of nature. Now no suspension of the laws which God has established, and maintains in continual operation, could take place otherwise than by the express permission, or rather the co-operation of God himself: and the person, therefore, who performs such miracles, must be acting under the immediate sanction of the great Lord of the Universe; and if he also teach lessons-lessons worthy of God-these lessons undoubtedly come to us clothed with divine authority.

And it will also follow, secondly, that the same writings are INSPIRED of God. Declarations to the effect that their authors were under the guidance of God's HOLY SPIRIT, are found in various parts of the writings themselves; which declarations, being themselves already admitted to be true and credible, establish at once the point in question: and it, therefore, follows further, as an additional and very important consequence, that these writings deserve and require to be received as containing the very WORD of GOD; and all the lessons which they contain have precisely the same authority, as if they had proceeded, at once and immediately, from the lips of the Almighty himself.

Hence, then, these writings come to be esteemed SACRED, and to constitute what we call the CANON of SCRIPTURE. The word Canon is a Greek term, meaning a Rule; and by the use of it in this connexion, it is simply intended to express the idea, that these SACRED SCRIPTURES form the RULE or standard of a Christian's faith and practice. They are the fountain, from which he is to draw the knowledge of all those truths which he must "believe to the saving of his soul," and of all those duties in which he is "to walk and to please God."

But before I proceed to the second part of this discourse, I must return, for a few moments, to one of those

subjects of inquiry, to which I have already referred, as being both legitimate in themselves, and essential to the establishment of the Canon of Scripture. I mean that which relates to the question, whether these writings are now in a perfect or mutilated state; whether, as we have them now, they are the same, without addition, diminution, or material and designed alteration, as they proceeded from the pen of their authors; or, in other words, to the question of the genuineness of the Books of Holy Scripture. And I do this for the purpose of offering some remarks, upon the manner in which an inquiry of this nature must be conducted. Such an inquiry, it is obvious, must relate, directly and immediately, to the Scriptures in their original languages; and it should be remarked, that it is wholly of a literary character, and, in no sort whatever, different from the species of investigation which must be instituted and performed, in order to ascertain the genuineness of the productions of any other author, whether sacred or profane.

Suppose then we have in our hands a copy of one of the gospels, or a copy of some work of any ancient author, and we fix upon some particular passage in that copy, and wish to ascertain whether that passage was really contained in the work at first:-In what manner should we proceed with such an inquiry? This is the question now before us, and to which I wish to invite your close attention.

We live in an age when books are greatly multiplied through the introduction of the art of printing; and the works of authors of note pass through many editions. Well --it would be a method sufficiently obvious, perhaps, to look first, into such various modern printed editions as we can procure, and see whether the passage in question is contained in them. We should then consider ourselves, I conceive, naturally directed next, to former, and then in succession to

still earlier editions, until we come to the time of the invention of printing. Advancing from that period upwards, we are confined to manuscript, or written copies only. Of these we may examine all that we can obtain, proceeding from those of a more modern, to those of a more ancient date, until we arrive at the time in which our author flourished. And if we find, in the course of this inquiry, but few instances of copies in which the passage in question is omitted; and if, especially, we find no instance of such omission in those manuscripts which appear to be most correct, we may then, it would seem, conclude, with moral certainty at least in favour of such conclusion, that our passage is genuine, and that it did really constitute a part of the author's original.

It is, however, a possible case that there may be no manuscripts so ancient as the date of the author; and it is evident that, in such an instance, we can proceed only so far as to the oldest we can obtain; and our conclusion, drawn from these sources, will be of the same kind as before.

It may also occur, that Translations of the work under examination, may have been made into different languages; of which translations copies may be found; and if these also contain the particular passage, which is the subject of investigation, they will evidently furnish a strong corroborative testimony in its favour.

And a very important additional testimony, to the same effect, will be supplied, if the same passage is found to be referred to; and more especially if it is quoted in express terms by other ancient writers.

Here, however, I would venture to ask one question, which shall be as follows:-Let it be supposed, that after a diligent and long continued research of the above nature, all the direct evidence possible- the evidence of every

edition, of every manuscript copy (these amounting to several hundreds), and of every translated version (some of these also being very ancient) in existence, without exception is found to be uniformly the same; and the whole to be in favour of the genuineness of some particular passage of a work which is under examination; suppose, too, that this passage is quoted or referred to by other ancient authors. But let it be supposed, also, that in reading some authentic history, we find that mention is made of some person or persons, who possessed one or more copies of this same work, in which it is declared, that this particular passage did not exist: would such a fact appear sufficient to render the genuineness of the passage in any considerable degree liable to suspicion? I am inclined to think the contrary would be the case.

But let us suppose, further, that the historian who informs us of the existence of these manuscripts, should be found, in speaking of some of them, not to have said that the passage in question was wanting, but to have made a remark bearing a totally different sense; and also that the same historian, in speaking of the remainder of these manuscripts, should have informed us, in distinct terms, that they were not entire and perfect, but corrupted and mutilated, in which statement he is also borne out by all other historical testimonies relating to the same subject; and let methen ask-What is the conclusion, at which a candid mind would arrive, to be drawn from such premises as these? Would any of you, brethren, think such a mode of reasoning as the following to be warranted and just? "It is true, that all the manuscripts and all the versions now in existence, without any exception, support the passage concerning which I am making my inquiries; but because I have learnt that some well-known garblers and interpolators of antiquity, had some copies of the work of my