Christians owe the assurance of possessing the trus gospels, or faithful memoirs of the lite of Christ! It is from these only they are permitted to deduce the principles of their belief, and the rules of conduct which they ought to observe, in order to obtain eternal salvation!

Thus, the authority of the books which serve for the basis of the Christian religion, is founded solely on the authority of a council, of an assembly of priests and bishops. But these bishops and priests, judges and parties in an affair wherein they were obviously interested--could they not be themselves deceived? Independently of the apocryphal miracle, which enabled them to distinguish the true gospels from the false-had they any sign, which could fairly enable them to distinguish the writings which they ought to receive from those which they ought to reject?

Some will tell us, that the church assembled in a general council is infallible; that then the Holy Ghost inspires it, and that its decisions ought to be regarded as those of God himself. If we demand, where is the proof that the church enjoys this infallibility? it will be answered, that the gospel assures it, and that Jesus Christ has expressly promised to assist and enlighten his church until the consummation of ages. Here the incredulous will reply, t at the church then, or its ministers, create rights to themselves; for it is their authority which alone establishes the authenticity of books whereby their own authority is established; this is obviously a circle of eors. In short, an assembly of ishops and riests has decided, that t e books w ich attribute to themselves an infallible authority, have been divinely inspired.

Notwithstanding that decision, there still remain

some difficulties on the authenticity of the gospels. In the first place, it may be asked, whether the decision of the Council of Nice, composed of three hundred and eighteen bishops, ought to be regarded as that of the universal church? Were all who formed that assembly entirely of the same opinion among themselves? Were there no disputes among these men inspired by the Holy Ghost? Was their decision unanimously accepted? Had not the secular authority of Constantine a chief share in the adoption of the decrees of that cele brated council? In this case, was it not the imperial power, rather than the spiritual authority, which decided the authenticity of the gospels?

In the second place, many theologists agree, that the universal church, although infallible in dogma, may err in facts. Now it is evident, that in the case alluded to, dogma depends on fact. Indeed, before deciding whether the dogmas contained in the gospels be divine, it was necessary to know, beyond the possibility of a doubt, whether the four gospels in question were really written by the inspired authors to whom they are ascribed; this is obviously a fact. It was further necessary to know, whether these gospels have never been altered, mutilated, augmented, interpolated, or falsified, by the different hands through which they have passed in the course of three centuries; this is likewise a fact. Can the fathers of the church infallibly guarantee the probity of all the depositaries of those writings, and the exactness of all the transcribers? Can these fathers decide definitively, that, during so long a period, none could insert marvellous relations or dogmas in these memoirs, unknown to those who are their sup posed-authors? Does not ecclesiastical history inform us, that, in the origin of Christianity, there were

schisms, disputes, heresies, and sects without number; and that each of the disputants founded his opinions on the gospels? Even in the time of the Council of Nice, do we not find that the whole church was divided on the fundamental article of the Christian religion, the divinity of Jesus?

Thus, on considering the matter closely, it will be seen that the Council of Nice was the true founder of Christianity, which, till then, wandered at random; did not acknowledge Christ to be god; had not any authentic gospels; was without a fixed law; and had no code of doctrine whereon to rely. A number of bishops and priests, very few in comparison of those who composed the whole Christian church, and these bishops very little in union among themselves, have decided on the point most essential to the salvation of nations. They have decided on the divinity of Jesus; on the authenticity of the gospels; that, according to these, their own authority ought to be deemed infallible. In a word, they have decided on faith! Nevertheless, their decisions might have remained without force, if they had not been backed by the authority of Constantine. This prince gave prevalence to the opinion of these fathers of the Council, who knew how to draw him, for a time, to their own side ;* and who, amidst this multitude of gospels and writings with which Christianity was inundated, did not fail to declare those divine,

* Ecclesiastical history proves, that Constantine afterwards persecuted Athanasius, exiled him to Treves, and died an Arian. His son Constantine lived and died in the same sect. Father Petau the Jesuit, and other learned men, believed that the Church was Socinian or Arian before the council of Nice. It is at least certain, that the word consubstantial, which was adopted by that souncil, had been condemned by the council of Antioch held

which they judged most conformable to their own par ticular opinions, or to the ruling faction. In religion, as in other things, the reasoning of the strongest party is always the best.

Behold then, in the last resort, the authority of an emperor, who determines the chief points of the Christian religion! This emperor, but little fixed in his own faith, decides, until further orders, that Jesus is consubtantial with the Father, and compels his subjects to receive, as inspired, the four gospels we have in our hands. It is in these memoirs, exclusively adopted by some fathers in the Council of Nice; by them attributed to apostles, or unexceptionable witnesses, inspired by the Holy Ghost; by them proposed to serve as an indispensable rule to Christiansthat we are to seek for the materials of our history. We shall state them with fidelity; we shall compare, and connect the relations, often discordant, which they contain; we shall see if the facts which they detail are worthy of God, and calculated to procure to mankind the advantages which they expect. This enquiry will enable us to judge rightly of the Christian religion; of the degree of confidence we ought to place in it; of the esteem we ought to entertain for its lessons and dogmas; and of the idea we should form of Jesus its founder.

Though, in composing this history, we have laid it down as a rule to employ the gospels only, we pre

against the famous Paul of Samosata. But our doctors have recourse to saying, with St. Augustine, that the ancient general councils were corrected by posterior councils; or else they tell us, with the Cardinal de Cusa, "that the Church, by changing its opinion, obliges us to believe that God also changes his.” Thus it is that the clergy sport with Cbristians.

sume not to flatter ourselves, that it will please every body, or that the clergy will adopt our labours. The connections which we shall form; the interpretations we shall give; the animadversions we shall present to our readers; will not be always entirely agreeable to the views of our spiritual guides, the greater part of whom are enemies to all enquiry. To such men we would state, that criticism gives a lustre to truth; that to reject all examination, is to acknowledge the weakness of their cause; and that not to wish for discussion, is to avow it to be incapable of sustaining a trial.

If they tell us, that our ideas are repugnant to the decisions of councils, of the fathers, and of the universal church; to this we shall answer, that, according to the sacred books, opposition is not always a crime; we shall plead the example of an apostle, to whom the Christian religion is under the greatest obligations— what do we say !-to whom alone, perhaps, it owes its existence. Now this apostle boasts of having withstood the great St. Peter to his face, that visible head of the church, appointed by Christ himself to feed his flock; and whose infallibility, therefore, is at least as probable as that of his successors, and even that of the church assembled in cecumenical council.

If they tax us with innovation, we shall plead the example of Jesus himself, who was regarded as an innovator by the Jews, and who was a martyr for the reform he wanted to introduce. We, however, candidly declare, that we have no desire to imitate him in thiswe applaud only to the martyrdom exclusively. If the tenets advanced be unacceptable, the author, as he has no pretensions to divine inspiration, leaves to every one the liberty of rejecting or receiving his in