rope cast it off. In the ninth century, she had broken off all connexion with the larger half of the Christian world. In the sixteenth, she quarreled with half of that section which remained with her. And yet, after all these secessions, secessions, too, caused by her own inadmissible pretensions, she coolly anathematizes the seceders, and declares that those who abide by her, and those only, constitute the Christian or Catholic church!

But this position is evidently untenable, except, indeed, she can show that with her, and with her alone, is the truth of Christianity to be found. If Christianity exists in other communions, as we must fain hope it does, then it must be impossible to maintain the claim of the Romish church to be, exclusively and solely, the catholic or universal church. Historically, as we have already shown, she is not so; geographically or statistically, it is equally clear she is not so; and consequently it can only be by the clearest proof, that the truth is with her, and with her alone,—that her right to the title can be established.

49

III. ON THE RULE OF FAITH.

THE ROMISH RULE OF FAITH EXAMINED.

WE have seen, then, that the attempt to impose the decisions of the church of Rome upon mankind, as the decisions of the Catholic or Universal church, is wholly unwarranted by the facts of the case. Let us now try to get a little closer to her pretensions, and to see what weight attaches to her claims, when considered on their own intrinsic merits.

We shall no where find a more artful and effective statement of the case, as against the Protestant rule of faith, and in favour of the Romish, than in Dr. Wiseman's Lectures. He thus states the argument:

"The authority of history, or of ecclesiastical tradition, independently of the divine force allowed it by the Catholic, can prove no more than the genuineness or truth of the Scripture narrative; but to be available as a proof of inspiration, must carry us directly to the attestation of the only witnesses capable of certifying the circumstance. It may be true that the church, or body of Christians, in succeeding times, believed the books of the New Testament to be inspired. But if that church and its traditions are not infallible, that belief goes no farther than a mere human or historical testimony; it can verify, therefore, no more than such testimony ever can; that is, outward and visible facts, such as the publication, and consequently the legitimacy of a work. The only way in which it can attest the interior acts which accompanied its compilation, is, by preserving the assurances of those who, besides God, could alone be witnesses to them. Now, ecclesiastical history has not preserved to us this important testimony; for no where have we the record of any of these writers

having asserted his own inspiration. And thus, by rejecting tradition as an authority, is the only basis for the inspiration of Scripture cut away."

"Hitherto, then, my brethren, of what have I been treating? Why of nothing more than the preliminaries requisite to commence the study of the Protestant rule of faith. I have merely shown that the obstacles and difficulties to receiving the Bible, as the word of God, are numerous and complicated; and yet, if it is the duty of every Protestant to believe all that he professes, because he has sought and discovered it in the word of God; if, consequently, it is his duty to be satisfied only on his own evidence, as the divines of his church have stated; if, to attain this conviction, it is necessary for him to go through a long and painful course of learned disquisitions; and if, after all these have been encountered, he cannot come to a satisfactory demonstration of the most important point of inspiration, I ask you, can the rule, in the approach to which you must pass through such a labyrinth of difficulties, be that which God has given as a guide to the poorest, the most illiterate, and simplest of his creatures?'*

And having thus proved, to his own satisfaction at least, the weakness and uncertainty attendant on this course, he next proceeds to develope the Romish system. On this part of the subject he says:

"Let us suppose that, not content, with the more compendious method whereby God has brought us, through baptism and our early instruction, into the possession of the faith, we are disposed to investigate the authority of its principles; we begin naturally with Scripture-we take up the gospels, and submit them to examination."t

Here we must pause for an instant, to admire the Proteus-like changes of Romanism, and its wonderful power of adapting itself to existing circumstances. When, till the year 1836, did the Romish church, or any of its advocates, admit that in the investigation

* Wiseman's Second Lecture, p. 43.

+ Third Lecture, p. 62.

of our religious principles, we should "begin naturally with Scripture?" When, till now, was it ever said, "we take up the gospels, and submit them to examination?" How opposite is the policy and the spirit here manifested, to the tone and temper of the church of Rome in those days, and in those countries, in which she could safely venture to lock up the word of God from the sight of men. Even within the last twenty years, we have on record the vehement opposition of two popes to the use of the Holy Scripures. In 1816, Pope Pius the Seventh denounced the circulation of the Bible in the following terms:-"It is a crafty device, by which the very foundations of religion are undermined. It is a pestilence and defilement of the faith most dangerous to souls." And Leo XII. in 1824, denounces the Bible Society in equally energetic language. "It strolls with effrontery through the world, contemning the traditions of the holy fathers, and, contrary to the well-known decrees of the council of Trent, labours with all its might, and by every means, to translate, or rather to pervert, the Holy Bible into the vulgar language of all nations."

C

This was the tone adopted by the Romish church, when on its own ground; amidst a blind and devoted population, with whom proofs and arguments were unnecessary; with whom it was enough to say, "the church decrees, or declares so and so," and implicit submission followed of course. But Dr. Wiseman has a very different task in hand. He is addressing a people who have been accustomed to be reasoned with; and he knows full well, that if he were merely to pronounce to his hearers that he and his colleagues were infallible, the rejoinder would be, "Do you expect us to believe that, merely because you choose to say so?" He feels it absolutely necessary, therefore, to seek for some credentials. And where is he to find those credentials, but in the Bible? Whether he can find them there or not, remains to be seen; but if he fails in that quarter, he is not likely to succeed in any other. Standing, therefore, before an English audi

tory, and feeling himself obliged to present to them something bearing at least the semblance of an argument, he is compelled, however unwillingly, to begin with Holy Scripture; and he accordingly says, "being disposed to investigate the authority of its principles (the principles of Romanism) we begin naturally with Scripture,-we take up the gospels."

But it may be said, that Dr. Wiseman does not mean to recommend this course of proceeding. Of that we are well aware. He evidently prefers what he calls, "the more compendious method whereby God brought us, through baptism and our early instruction, into the possession of the faith." In other words he would wish a set of followers who having been baptized into the Romish church in infancy, and having constantly heard, from their early instructors, that the Romish church was the only true church-the only safe church, have ever ranged themselves among her. disciples, without a single inquiry as to the validity of her pretensions, or the truth of her doctrinal creed. These, we are aware, would be scholars after Dr. Wiseman's own heart. But he knows that among his hearers at Moorfields, this sort of blind admission of the most arrogant pretensions cannot be generally expected. He is obliged to deal with them as with reasonable creatures. And he finds it impossible to construct a plausible scheme, on which to rest his system of belief, except by going at once to Scripture, and endeavouring to frame a case out of its testimony. Observe, however, the confession herein implied. If a man is content with "the compendious method," as Dr. Wiseman calls it, of believing without inves tigation, this he can do in any church and with any creed. But if he is "disposed to investigate the authority of his principles," if he is desirous of being able to "give a reason of the hope that is in him," then, even Dr. Wiseman himself can help him to no other course than to "begin naturally with Scripture," to "take up the gospels, and submit them to examination." Thus, after all his horror at the idea of the exercise of "private judgment," after all his