path," is it either decent or comely for Dr. Wiseman to represent it as unintelligible and bewildering.

But the real question is, Is it the Rule prescribed by God himself? The existence of some lofty and still obscure prophecies in its pages is nothing to the purpose in this question. Here is a book, given by inspiration of God, for the use of man. It is, by the admission of all parties, wholly free from error or obliquity. It declares itself, again and again, to be sent to mankind as their infallible guide. And where is there any other? Those who tell us that the Scriptures are not to be understood, ought to show us "the voice of the church;" and let us see if that be more lucid and intelligible. But this "voice of the church" is no where to be found, save in some threescore volumes of records of councils, or writings of fathers, which the great mass of the people could never possess, nor understand, if they were even to obtain them. Dr. Wiseman asks, "Who ever heard of the propriety and wisdom of placing in men's hands a code or rule, which it was impossible for the greater portion of them to comprehend?" But we demand, in reply, Who ever heard of the propriety or wisdom of placing in men's hands no code or rule whatever; of leaving them without any other guide or director than a fallible man like themselves; and of taking away from them that which is not denied to be God's own word, merely because there are some passages in it which are too high for man's comprehension?

We trust, then, that we have succeeded in showing that in every point suggested by Dr. Wiseman, as a ground for disbelieving that God intended the Scriptures as a rule of faith to man,-the rival rule, put forward by Dr. W. himself,-to wit, THE CHURCH, is open to far greater objection. There must be a greater difficulty in establishing the authority of such a Rule, and a greater difficulty in applying it, if it could be established.

264

XIV. INFALLIBILITY.

ON THE ALLEGED NECESSITY FOR AN INFALLIBLE CHURCH.

Ir now seems advisable, and, in fact, almost necessary, before proceeding further, to take a brief retrospect of the course of argument through which we have passed, and to gain, as far as may be, a correct idea of our present position.

The discussion has hitherto turned almost exclusively on the rule of faith. We have endeavoured to maintain the Protestant doctrine; that Holy Scripture was the one, sole, and sufficient rule, furnished and set forth by God himself;-and to show the untenable nature of the opposite principle,-that the Catholic church is the true depositary and only authorized expositor of Christian doctrine; dispensing from her ample stores, and with divine authority, both Holy Scripture and Catholic tradition, as in her wisdom she sees fit. In arguing the question we have endeavoured both to establish the Protestant principle, by showing the Scriptures to be incontrovertibly genuine, true, and divinely inspired; and also to overthrow the contrary doctrine, by exhibiting the unfounded character of the pretensions of the Romish church. With the latter view we have investigated the claims of the church of Rome to her assumed title of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church; and also the pretensions of her bishops to be considered the successors and representatives of Peter. Both these assumptions we found to be utterly untenable. And we are now in a position to demand, on behalf of the Protestant churches, a decision in their favour, on this great fundamental point.

In this stage of the argument, however, another view of the question is often raised, and one which it seems necessary here to meet.

It is asked whether we can conceive it possible for the Lord Jesus, when he left for a time this earth, upon which he was shortly to number thousands of faithful followers, to have determined to leave all those followers destitute of guidance, subject to no authority, included within no pale, but wandering about in their isolated and individual characters, free to choose or to form a church for themselves, or to continue in a state of independence of all churches? Can you believe, it is demanded, for an instant, that he did not, most deliberately, fully, and of set purpose, constitute and appoint a CHURCH, in which, and by which, his gospel was to be preserved and preached; and within whose pale all his true disciples were bound to range themselves? This, it is assumed, can hardly be doubted. But if the fact be admitted, then we are asked, where can that church, so founded and constituted, be found, except in that body of which the sovereign pontiff is the head?

In her it is said, you find a clear and unquestionable succession, from the very days of the apostles. You find her also, ever admitted to stand as the alone centre of unity and fountain of authority; while all other churches, or rather pseudo-churches, are nothing else than so many irregular off-shoots, or run-away children, who claim to share in, or to vie with the authority, although they lose every vestige of right to assume such a position, the moment they rebel against her unquestionable rule. We ask, therefore, it is said,-where, admitting, as you must, that Christ founded a visible church—where can that church be discerned, except in the communion of which the successors of Peter are the head? A church of Christ, established by himself, there surely must be; and where, except here, can it be found?

This is a favourite position with the Romish advocates in the present day, and we shall not attempt to

evade or shrink from its force; but will endeavour carefully and deliberately to weigh its value.

We remark, then, first, that as we have an inspired record of the words and actions of the Lord Jesus, we have no occasion to imagine for ourselves what it was "likely" that he would do, or leave undone. His commands, as they are recorded by his apostles and evangelists, we are to observe; his institutions we are to reverence; but the greatest regard and reverence we can possibly show to his memory and his injunctions, will be exhibited by a careful guarding of those injunctions from all admixture and alloy; and a determination to allow no "commandments of men" to be placed on a level with his own provisions, or to rank with the institutions established by himself.

Instead, therefore, of arguing that he must have established a visible church: and that that church must be the church of Rome; it will be far wiser and better to go at once to the record, and to ascertain beyond the possibility of inistake, what kind or description of body it was that he actually did constitute, and by what course of reasoning it is that Rome assumes to occupy this place.

Now such a reference as this will satisfy us at once, that not a single word did Christ ever utter touching the Roman see; or the successors of Peter; nor a syllable pointing at the supremacy of any one church or any portion of the church, whether a larger or a smaller section. His latest injunctions and delegation of authority were given at Jerusalem, where unquestionably the first Christian church was founded. As for the church and see of Rome, we have the best ground for asserting that neither the one nor the other had any existence for at least thirty years after. If, consequently, it was intended by Christ that his authority should devolve, on his departure, on the see of Rome, it was most wonderful that he should' have left Rome without any church or any bishop for more than a quarter of a century. One thing, however, is clear, that if, at any time during thirty

years after the Saviour's death, any one had asked, Where the church established by Christ was to be met with? it would have been instantly replied, At Jerusalem, where the twelve apostles generally meet, and from whence all decrees touching the government of the church do issue. (Acts xvi. 4.)

But how, then, let us ask, did it ever come to pass, that the church of Rome assumed to herself this rank and character?

Unquestionably the basis of the power and authority of Rome must be sought for, not in divine, but in human decrees. Not a syllable is found in holy writ, having even the least tendency that way. Nor had the Roman bishop, while the days of persecution lasted, any such rank or authority in the church at large: But, when the empire became Christian, and emperors began to bow down before the prelates of the church, then it soon, and very naturally occurred, that the bishop of the imperial city assumed a perpetually augmenting power. And this assumption falling in with popular fancies and prejudices, the Roman bishop, when the imperial throne itself was removed from that city, became the leading person in that great metropolis. Then were the pretensions of that see daily enlarged, and as a basis for its vast assumptions, the fiction of Peter's primacy was invented, a fiction of which the Christian world, during the first three centuries after Christ's ascension, had never heard a syllable. Such are the simple facts of the case. And if the question is again put, whether Christ did not himself constitute and establish a visible church? we must of necessity reply, that if he did so, it must have been the church of Jerusalem, for, unquestionably, of the church of Rome he never uttered a single word.

The Romanist, however, will perhaps tells us that we have not grappled with the main feature of the case. The locality, the seat of authority and of unity, -he will say, may never have been denoted or fixed by Christ; but can it be denied that he left behind him, as his representative on earth, a CHURCH, a body of