66

Yet what is the course of reasoning adopted by Dr. Wiseman? He takes up the gospels, merely, he assures us again and again, as historical documents, of fair average credibility; and in one of them he finds these words, said to have been used, on a certain occasion, by Christ, All power is given to me in heaven and on earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And, behold, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world."

This passage, according to Dr. Wiseman's argument, we cannot know,-till we have admitted the authority of the Romish church, and that church has declared it to be inspired of God,-to be any thing more than a common, ordinary narration like those of the sayings of Cæsar or of Socrates. But who will venture to take up the pages of Livy or of Thucydides, or any other mere historian, and to pin his faith on the perfect accuracy with which every sentence of every conversation is noted down? And who, treating St. Matthew's gospel as a mere history,' and so, according to Dr. Wiseman, it must be treated, (until we have submitted to the church, and the church certifies its inspiration)—who will dare to pledge his faith upon the probability, (for if the gospel be a 'mere history,' it can be nothing more,) that these words of Christ's, narrated by Matthew thirty years after they were spoken, were narrated with perfect accuracy?

Who will assure us that not one word was added, nor one omitted; or that the word so added or omitted was of no material consequence? Will any student of history produce a passage of similar length, from

Herodotus or Tacitus, from Hume or Robertson, from any modern or any ancient writer, and aver that he is absolutely certain that the speech so set down in the record, is precisely and accurately the very speech, to the letter, that was uttered? If not,-if it cannot even be imagined that such a thing exists, except by Inspiration, as a perfect record, made years after the fact, of a speech actually spoken, in the very words which really fell from the speaker,-why should this single passage in St. Matthew be taken to be the one solitary exception to the universal rule, of the imperfec-. tion of human memories, and of human records. No, if the standing and authority of the church of Rome rests on nothing better than a passage of six or eight lines, occurring in 'a mere history,'-then, assuredly, it rests upon the sand, and might challenge the annals of imposition to shew a weaker or a narrower foundation.

We, however, believe these verses of St. Matthew to have been penned under the influence of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and to be, therefore, most accurately and authoritatively recorded. Dr. Wiseman's error is, in adducing them only as the testimony of 'a mere history,'-as 'human testimony.' If they be nothing better,-or, which is the same thing, if they are to be dealt with as if they were nothing better than a mere history,' then might we as well attempt to found a religion on some story found in Xenophon or in Rapin, as to build the lofty pretensions of the Romish church upon a passage of some half dozen lines, occurring in the pages of one who might either have misconceived or half-forgotten what he had heard, if, indeed, he ever heard what he relates.

Never was there a more monstrous dispro

portion apparent, than this attempt to build an universal and infallible church, upon what is alleged to be nothing more than an act of the memory of a single, unsupported, and fallible man.

Had Dr. Wiseman sought a sufficient basis for his argument, he should have dealt with the scriptures in their proper character, of a revelation from God. This, their true character, can be established, and has been established, repeatedly and abundantly, without the aid of the church of Rome. This Dr. Wiseman knew, but he preferred even to risk his cause by resting it upon an insufficient foundation, rather than to declare, at the outset, the divine authority of holy scripture, and to take all the consequences flowing therefrom. He was well aware that if it should appear that we have in God's word, an infallible guide and standard of doctrine, without the interference of the church of Rome, it might probably follow that men would perceive that this boasted infallibility of the church was not needed, and was, in fact, of no real use to them. They would be apt to argue that án infallible guide, to be of any utility, must be infallible, not only in the aggregate, but also in all its parts. The Bible was the work of inspiration, as a whole; and each verse in it was equally true and equally divine. But if the church could be called infallible as a whole, was every priest of that church to be treated as infallible also? If not, of what use was this abstract infallibility, since it was with some individual priest that each man had to do. Thus the Bible, if admitted and declared to be an inspired volume, must, in the exercise of common sense, be preferred to that church, which, although claiming infallibility, would not or could not explain

how, or through what medium, that attribute was to be exercised.

But we have to remark, in the second place, that even were Dr. Wiseman's argument admitted, and we were to allow the possibility of establishing an infallible authority by the testimony of a fallible witness, we have not thereby got rid of the Bible, but have merely enforced another duty; and one which, as clearly contained in scripture, is as little objected to by Protestants as it is by Romanists-namely, the duty of preaching the gospel; as well as of distributing it in the form of copies of the divine word.

Dr. Wiseman argues very vehemently against the use of the scriptures as a rule of faith, and in favour of a settled ministry. We contend in favour of both, and against neither. The scriptures require to be heralded and accompanied by the messengers of salvation; on this point there is no difference of opinion :-require, we say, not absolutely, (for the Spirit of God can act by means of the written word alone, or even without any human means whatever) but generally. The command of Christ is two-fold, and one injunction is as binding as the other. To his apostles, and to those who, after their example, should devote themselves to his cause, his mandate is, Preach the gospel to every creature. To mankind generally, who are to hear this gospel, his injunction is, Search the scriptures, for they are they which testify of me.

Now Protestants fully receive both these rules. We preach the gospel; and we direct the people to search the scriptures for a warrant for every word we say. Nor will the Romish church, at least in England, venture directly to impugn either of these two

F

instructions. She exalts and extols the ministry, and she dares not openly deny the use of the scriptures. Where, then, is the main ground of difference between us. It lies in the opposite conclusions to which we come, as to the ultimate authority on any question. The written word, and the ministry, being both in operation among the people, the question is, which of the two is the greater? We Protestants say, that the inspired word of God is the only infallible guide and standard, and that the ministers of the gospel are simply to preach what they find therein contained. We make, therefore, the Bible to be the ultimate standard, in case of any difference arising. The Romish church, on the other hand, asserts that the authority of scripture is subordinate to that of the ministry. In the words of Dr. Wiseman, 'the scripture must needs be received, so as to be reconciled .with the existence of a supreme authority, in matters of faith, existing in the church.' To explain this distinction as briefly as possible, the church of England declares that the ministers of the gospel have no right or authority to teach any thing as necessary to salvation, save what may be proved from holy scripture. The church of Rome, on the other hand, affirms that neither may the words of holy writ be understood in any other sense than that which she chooses to put upon them, nor is it true that scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation. With us, the Bible is the standard to which the preacher himself and every thing else is to be brought; with the Romanist the Bible may only be understood as the church chooses to interpret it, and to its contents they add an indefinite mass of further doctrines, under the title of the 'unwritten traditions of the church.' The vast differ