these Scriptures, or even whether traditions themselves be a part of Divine Revelation? These are all distinct questions; for even if tradition were to be held as a part of Divine Revelation, Popery admits that if a tradition contradicted the written Word it could not be a Divine Tradition. Therefore we repeat the pure abstract question is -"are the principles of the Church of Rome conformable to that word which she herself admits to be divinely inspired or

not

This, as we have shown, is, the principle Moore sets out with, and to determine this principle-to find a religion pure as the fountain, he resolves to study the sacred volume, with the aids of the writings of its first expounders, as he calls them, so that text and comment might, by such juxta-position, throw light on each other.

Now to reason with any common propriety on any subject, much less on one so solemn and important as this, Mr. Moore should have conducted his readers to this conclusion, that having studied the Scriptures, and compared the principles of the Popish Church with them in such and such series of particulars, which series ought to have constituted the body of his work, he had come to this conclusion, that the principles of the Popish Church were conformable to the Scriptures and consequently pure and genuine Christianity, and therefore, being in search of a Religion he should adopt this one as the true Religion of Christ.

But what is Mr. Moore's conclusion? Let any human being capable of appreciating an argument, compare the principle with which he sets out in the 12th page of his first volume with the conclusion at which he arrives in the close of his second.

He sets out to ascertain the truth of his religion by comparing it with the Sacred Scriptures and the writings of the Fathers, and the conclusion to which he comes is that three of the Gospels are spurious, nay, that none of the books of the New Testament are inspired (for this is his statement, compare p. 337 with note p. 191, vol. 2.) and that if every letter of it were in the bottom of the sea the principles and authority of his Church would be totally unaffected by its destruction!!! Now what, on his own principles, can be more unutterably absurd? If, in

deed, Popery can stand independent of the Scriptures, why assume " the study of the Sacred Volume" as necessary to determine the truth of Popery? and if that volume is necessary to determine the truth of Popery, how can he possibly arrive at the conclusion that Popery would be unaffected by its total destruction?

This is merely considering the question in a logical point of view; but when we examine the nature of his principles, it is impossible to decide whether we feel more disgust at their wickedness or their folly.

He first lays it down as a fact-that criticism has made "the strange and startling discovery" "that the three first Gospels are but transcriptions from some older documents, and not the works of the writers whose names they bear," and asserts that this is calculated to strike consternation into Protestants who find their sole rule of faith thus unsettled."

When we who are a little more sceptical of this criticism however formidable, then, of these same three Gospels which it has so conclusively subverted, begin to enquire where are we to find it? who are these redoubtable critics who have so upset the foundations of our faith? as Mr. Moore gives us no reference to them here, we find our question solved in this second volume of our author's travels, p.p. 190– 191, and we take this opportunity of introducing to our readers another feature of his production.

For the purpose of proving that the right of appealing to the Word of God in defiance of the tyranny of the Church of Rome, which he nicknames rationalism, necessarily leads to neology or infidelity, Mr. Moore professes to have gone in his travels to Germany, and to have attended lectures in the University of Gottingen under the pretence of prosecuting his search after a religion. He is here introduced to a certain professor of theology or rather of neology, whom he names Scratchenbach, in plain English Scratching back, a very appropriate appellation, implying the agreement of mutual and responsive assistance between Popery and infidelity, whose co-operation in attacking the bible is well illustrated by the vulgar adage—“ scratch my back and I'll scratch your's." Mr. Moore lays such stress on the aid of this Professor that he employs no less than

seven chapters, amonting to 105 pages, in a lecture which he supposes to have been delivered by his learned friend, and we will venture to assert, that a more stupid drawling tirade of malevolent infidelity was never yet composed -if Satan were listening to it in a human form, we think it difficult to decide whether the stupidity would outdo the venom so as to put him to sleep, or the venom the stupidity so as to keep him awake. It closes, most appositely, with the subject as announced in the 66 Contents" of his chapters:

66

66

66

66

They (the German Divines) have "shewn that in most of the Epistles gross errors and interpolations abound, "the latter traceable chiefly to about "the beginning of the second century, "while not only the Epistles, but the Gospel attributed to St. John, have "been proved by Bretschnaeder to have "been the production of some gnostic of "the same period. Nor is this all, for 66 even the trustworthiness of the remaining three Gospels have been seriously called into question by a "most important discovery, which we "owe in the first instance to the sagacity of our learned Michaelis, but "which others since his time have brought still further into light. The "fact proved as it appears from clear “internal evidence, by these critics, is, "that the three first Gospels are not in reality the works of the writers whose "name they bear, but merely transcrip"tions or translations of some anterior "documents," on which he writes the following note:

$6

66

Now we call all men who bear the name of Christian, to the consideration of the principles which are here laid down. The Epistles and Gospel of John are "proved to have been the productions of some gnostic of the second century.

It is a fact proved by clear internal evidence, that the three first gospels are not in reality the works of the writers, whose names they bear, but merely transcriptions or translations of some anterior documents.”

And not only the Gospels but the Epis tles of Paul, and all the epistles (Peter himself the rock of the popery not excepted) are all mere translations from the Aramaic.

So that the whole New Testament, instead of being a work of inspiration of the Holy Ghost, is the production of some unknown person, and all its parts are mere translations, made by persons, whose names are lost, and who are betrayed by several blunders in the work they have undertaken.”

Here is the genuine impression of the word of the living God, which this Popish infidel endeavours to make upon the minds of those who are so weak or so ignorant as to be guided by his falsehood and his sophistry.

"O but," says Moore, "these are not my sentiments; I have introduced these as coming from a professor of neology in Germany, and have introduced them not as the opinions of the church of Rome, or as the results of her doctrines, but rather as the opinion of Protestants who profess to make a rational enquiry into the Scriptures, which is thus practically proved to lead to infidelity."

We grant that this is the gloss he tries to put upon the case, but we will not permit this unprincipled traveller to shelter his abominable principles

beneath such a flimsy sophistical disguise. We might ask even without going beyond this passage itself, how are these sentiments expressed? Are they put forth with any restriction or limitation? Is there any expression to qualify them to suggest a doubt of their veracity?-to supply an antidote to the poison they instil into the mind? -not a single one. Not a single tinge of the light of truth to relieve the dark and dismal gloom of scepticism and infidelity, which they are calculated to spread over the mind that comes within their dreary and malignant influence; they are evidently written with a spirit of demoniacal triumphant satisfaction, that thrusts out its poisoned sting, and feels a pleasure at leaving it in the wound. We defy any honest man on earth to read that passage, and say that he can feel a doubt that the writer wished to leave on the reader's mind the impression that the Scriptures were neither authenticated or inspired. We should rejoice in the possibility that we were mistaken; but Moore has not left us the consolation even of a hesitation on the subject, for these infidel speculations, which he so insidiously introduces as from a neological professor, so as to leave himself a loop-hole to escape in page 191, he adopts as his own, and thus snares himself in his own noose, in page 337. The lying and contemptible criticisms which he had first exhibited as the neological statements of the infidel divine, he here puts forth as facts in his own opinionhe sets it forth as a "strange and startling discovery," that the gospels are not the works of the writers whose name they bear ;"-a discovery so true as to "strike consternation into Protestants," and unsettle all our rule of faith; in plain words, upset both the authenticity and inspiration of the Bible.

How shall we measure the language of indignation and reproof towards a man, who can stand up with such unparalleled audacity before a nation calling itself Christian, and pretend to write in the defence of any religion, even of popery itself, and plead under such a guise the cause of infidelity; he may calculate, and too justly, indeed, that we are fallen very low in the scale of religion; but it is rather too much to suppose that we are all destitute of common understanding.

However, as far as we Protestants are concerned, we freely forgive him for the exhibition he has made of Popery. In our former review we proved that profligacy and sedition, and treachery, in the profession both of private friendship and of public principle, were all consistent with a blind and zealous devotion to the superstitions of the church of Rome. In this we made it too palpably appear that a man may be a bigotted votary of Popery, and an infidel even as to the very principles and evidences of the Christian faith; he may evince that one portentous truth, which Moore has no less confidently asserted than practically demonstrated, that the superstitions which he holds as a member of that anti-Christian apostacy, would remain untouched in their integrity and their perfection, if all the sacred records were blotted from the face of the earth; we are indebted to the folly of his reasoning for the admission of the truth, and the avowed infidelity of his principles has furnished us with the melancholy and unanswerable illustration.

We presume that the simple transcription of our traveller's sentiments is sufficient satisfactorily to establish their wickedness ; we are not sure whether to the cursory reader their gross absurdity may be so self-evident; we, therefore, just briefly point it out.

This same criticism which so strikes Protestants with consternation, and unsettles our rule of faith, "leaves," saith Mr. Moore, "the church which Christ founded and instructed, still secure on her old apostolical grounds." Now let us observe how this security is established. "The lamp of tradition, delivered down by the Apostles, at which the light of the Scriptures themselves was kindled, still burns, with saving lustre in her hands." Pray, gentle reader, even though you have never read a word of controversy or theology before, as being peculiarly destitute of all entertainment-if folly and inconsistency, and self-contradiction can amuse, you look here.

He first informs us that criticism has totally extinguished both the authenticity and inspiration of the New Testament, and left us poor Protestants shivering in darkness and consternation; then suddenly he good-naturedly relieves us, by affording us "the light of the Scriptures," again; only taking

he has kindled

care to inform us that it for us, and that we are solely indebted for its lustre to "the lamp of tradition!" Now, let us humbly enquire what is this same "lamp of tradition," and who lighted it? Moore does not tell us, as he supposes we cannot be so ignorant as not to know; however, Dr. Hornihold informs us, in his "Real Principles of Catholics," p. 336, Coyne, 1821.

Q. "What is tradition?

A." All such points of faith or church discipline, which are not clearly or not at all expressed in the Scripture, but were taught or established by the apostles, and have been carefully preserved in the church ever since."

Now, though no Popish writer before Moore ever had the folly or impudence to say that "the light of the Scriptures was kindled at the lamp of tradition," yet let us grant him his assertion, and what has he proved.

The Scriptures, or the written word of these Apostles, derive their light from tradition, or the unwritten word of these Apostles. Now, this tradition (as we will call it for argument's sake) has handed down, most certainly, that these Scriptures are canonical, and the genuine productions of the author's, whose names they bear. Dr. Hornihold says, in the same book, p. 331, "All these books are undoubtedly ca"nonical, as being received and de"clared as such by the Catholic “church, and, consequently, all and every part thereof are infallibly true, "for, otherwise, as St. Augustine says, "if any part were false or doubtful, all "would be uncertain."

Therefore, what does Moore do; he falsifies, as an infidel, the whole canon of the New Testament, by denying its authenticity and inspiration, and as a Papist, in the very same sentence, he ascribes its authority solely to tradition; but since tradition has delivered it as inspired-when he denies its in

spiration he falsifies his own witness, and proves that tradition is a liar, having handed down as inspired what he and his critics prove to have been not inspired; so that the sword of his infidel criticism is two-edged; with the one edge it hews down the inspiration of the Scriptures, and with the other cuts to pieces the authority of tradition; nay, it does not leave a single vestige of tradition remaining—for tradition is the unwritten word of the Apostles; but this criticism has proved that no such writers ever have existed, that "the gospels and epistles which we "read in Greek are merely translations "made by some persons whose names are "lost, and who betray themselves by se"veral blunders in the work which they "undertook," so that every tradition, and the very name of a tradition, must necessarily be a lie which professes to come from persons who are proved never to have been in existence; therefore, the wickedness of all Moore's arguments, as an infidel, serves only to illustrate his folly and absurdity as a Papist. If his arguments be true, his church is at best one lying superstition built upon another. Nature made him a finished profligate poet, but never intended him to figure as a theologian. He has aimed a blow at the religion of Christ, but his weapon has fallen only on the superstitions of the church of Rome.

Justice to the cause of truth—a sense of duty to the public, demands a faithful exposition of his work, but we desire to express unfeigned compassion for the author. In our last we exhibited him as a treacherous Jesuitnow he appears in the character of an infidel, and affords a melancholy example, that a man may cherish all the abominations of infidelity in his heart, consistently with the most wretched superstitions of Popery in his profession.