But in fact the argument is falsely stated. We do not believe the church on the authority of scripture, properly so called; we believe it on the authority of Christ; and if his commands in her regard, were recorded in any other book which we felt ourselves bound to believe, although uninspired, we should receive them and consequently the authority of the church, equally as now.'1

This reply virtually concedes the point for which we are contending. It consists of two parts-First, the illustration of an ambassador, of which the Romish controversialists are very fond. He says, ' When an ambassador presents himself before a sovereign, he is asked, where are his credentials? He presents them, and on the strength of them, he is acknowledged as an ambassador; so that he himself first presents the documents whereby his mission and authority are established.' Now here it is plainly implied, that the ambassador has with him credentials of the real character of which there is no doubt. A person presenting himself at court, whose person was wholly unknown, and whose real character and mission was doubtful, would not find the difficulty cleared up by presenting papers respecting which there was the same doubt as concerning himself. His credentials might, indeed, establish his credit, but only if their own character was perfectly indubitable. And just so we contend, that the church can never establish such a claim as that of an infallibility, on less than inspired authority. She must first of all commence with this. Mere human testimony, which may be full of error, will not suffice.

'Wiseman's Third Lecture, p. 65.

A word misplaced, a phrase omitted, things which constantly occur in every human author, may entirely change the sense of any passage. And so, when Dr. Wiseman says, in his second observation, that' we do not believe the church upon the authority of scripture, properly so called; we believe it on the authority of Christ; and if his commands in her regard, were recorded in any other book which we felt ourselves bound to believe, although uninspired, we should receive them and consequently the authority of the church, equally as now ;'—it is again clear that he is obliged to assume the inspiration of the gospels, to make his argument a valid one. Our only certainty that we have the authority of Christ in the gospels, rests on their inspiration. Without this all is doubtful and uncertain. And thus we see that it is absolutely impossible for the Romish church ever to construct a single argument of even apparent consistency, without somehow or other assuming this necessary point. And yet she persists in denying the possibility of knowing the inspiration of scripture without her aid, and thus leaves herself, at last, without any solid defence against the infidel.

Let us now endeavour to bring the view we have been taking, into the compass of a few sentences. The point we have been labouring to establish is this-that the objections brought against the Protestant rule of faith by Dr. Wiseman and others, tend, if followed to their just and logical consequences, to settle the reasoner's mind, not in Romanism, but in infidelity. This we prove as follows:

The Protestant, feeling the want of a rule of faith, a sure and infallible guide, to conduct him safely

towards the unseen world, examines the evidences in favour of the authenticity and inspiration of the holy scriptures. These evidences he finds to be amply sufficient; and he is thus brought to see that the Bible is, in very deed, the WORD OF GOD. From this instant it becomes his Infallible Guide, the guide of his steps, the safeguard of his way.

But the Romanist, seeing that if the Bible is thus enthroned in its rightful dominion, there will be little chance of establishing the authority of his church, denies, not only that the scriptures were ever intended to occupy this place, but he denies also that their inspiration and divine character can thus be ascertained without the interference or aid of his church. He boldly takes the infidel line of argument, arrays in opposition all the difficulties and dis'crepancies that he can muster; and finally concludes that it is only by first admitting the authority of his church that we can come to know that the scriptures are inspired.

But imagine for a moment that this point is conceded to the Romanist, and that we are thus deprived of the rule which we fancied we possessed-namely, the unerring word of God. We now pause for a moment, and look around for some guide in this wilderness-some friendly pilot, by which we may reach the haven of eternal rest. And what is proffered to us? The church? Well, then, of course we ask whether the evidence in favour of the church is clearer, stronger, and more unembarrassed with difficulties than that in favour of the Bible. If we were not to take the inspiration of the scriptures for granted, of course we must not be asked to take the divine authority of the church for granted either.

What, then, are the credentials of the church?what is the evidence of her divine commission,— evidence so clear, so indisputable, that all that can be adduced in favour of the inspiration of the scriptures shrinks from comparison with it?

The evidence by which this church of Rome establishes her divine commission, is stated by Dr. Wiseman to be nothing more than five or six passages in certain old books, written by Matthew, and Luke, and John, about 1800 years since. These old books Dr. Wiseman will not permit us to look upon as inspired, for until we have first ascertained the church's commission, and received her decision as to their inspiration, we must only consider them as 'mere historians.' But in these old writings we find five or six passages, not designating Rome, any more than Constantinople; not pointing to the pope, any more than to the archbishop of Canterbury; but promising a general presence and blessing to the disciples of Christ in all ages.

And upon these five or six passages, Dr. Wiseman builds the assumption, that Christ appointed the pope and the college of cardinals at Rome to govern the church in all ages, making their decision infallible and without appeal; and that the duty of all mankind is neither more nor less than that of 'absolute, unconditional submission to the teaching of the church.' This Church then becomes our infallible RULE, and we now receive the scriptures at her hands, and believe them to be the word of God, merely because she declares them to be so.

But this scheme is not logically tenable. We will not now discuss the passages cited; their bearing and import may be more or less absolute and dis

R

tinct. But we will merely observe, that if we are to take them as ordinary 'human historians,' and to accept their narratives just as we should those of other parties, writing, like them, many years after the occurrences related took place, we must necessarily look upon every sentence, every word, in fact, of these five or six passages, as being more or less uncertain. The inspiration of the writers being put out of view, there is not a word of these few brief passages, of the accuracy of which we can feel positively assured. What really occurred may have been, by the omission or addition of a word or two, materially altered. Upon such a basis as this, therefore, it is idle to think of resting so vast an edifice as an infallible tribunal. As well might we attempt to erect St. Peter's on a quicksand. The attempt utterly fails.

The result, then, is as follows: The Romanist first takes part with the sceptic in denying the possibility of establishing the divine inspiration of the scriptures: He then endeavours to rear up an infallible and divinely-commissioned authority in the room of the scriptures, but upon no better foundation than a few brief sentences of two or three mere historians,' who, of course, might err,-might be misinformed, or might misconstrue what they heard. This attempt necessarily fails; and having previously declared it impossible to ascertain the inspiration of the Scriptures without the aid of the Church, the poor Romanist is necessarily left, if he conducts the inquiry with logical precision, without any escape from the gulph of infidelity.