great relief and happiness as soon as its course has been decidedly taken, whether that course be right or wrong in itself.

The "reverend gentleman," finding himself unexpectedly foiled in this attempt, returned to the attack in another direction. He urged upon Mr. Seymour that he would certainly only attain peace and happiness in joining the Church of Rome, that "if he would only resolve to fling away his doubts and difficulties-if, instead of making objections and answering arguments, and requiring reasons and proofs-if, instead of all this, he would but fling them to the winds, and boldly and unhesitatingly enter the Church of Rome, he would escape all the harassing anxieties of doubt, and all the awfulness of infidelity . . . that he must else continue in doubt and difficulty.... that he must end in infidelity. There was no escape but in the Church of Rome."

He proceeded to urge that the only wise course, and that which would bring most comfort was to throw aside all doubts and difficulties, remembering that all questions had been already decided by the infallible authority of the Church. We must give the

answer:

...

"I said in reply to all this, that I could well understand such a course as an easy and effectual way of disposing of some difficulties; and that I had long been in the habit of acting on it. I fully felt the value and indeed the necessity for a tribunal, an infallible tribunal, to determine the religious difficulty of my mind.. My friend seemed to accept this as all he required, and was about to proceed with his argument, when I continued to say that I had found and felt that the Holy Scriptures were the Word of God,—that they were inspired by Him, and therefore were infallible . . . . I added that the difference between him and me was, that he bowed to a supposed authority, the inspiration and divinity of which I denied; while I bowed to an authority whose inspiration and divinity was admitted by all. He yielded to the decisions of the papal bulls, while I bowed to the decisions of the Holy Scriptures."-pp. 68, 69.

....

66

This was well said: it is a retort on that well-known argument of Romanists-"You admit that we can be saved: we deny that you can be saved; therefore it is safest to enter the communion in which all allow salvation can be obtained." Mr. Seymour has sharpened his weapons on the Romish whetstone. His argument here is to us altogether novel. The reply was precisely what he had anticipated." It consisted in the usual argument to show the unfitness of Scripture for any settlement of controversies. It was observed that if ten men could be produced who would agree in one interpretation, he could produce as many agreeing in a different interpretation, and that this liability to different interpre

tations rendered the Scriptures unfit for the settlement of controversies or difficulties.

This species of argument must be familiar to every one who is in any degree versed in the Romish controversy, and it is often urged with perfect success. But it was not so in the case of our author. His answer was as follows-and an excellent answer it

was:

"I rejoined to this, that although the argument has often before been used in many works of controversy, yet it had never seemed to me to have weight in the matter for which it was advanced, because the very same objection in all its force was as applicable to all the system of the Church of Rome. If appeal be made to the canon law,-if reference be made to the writings of the primitive fathers,-if the appeal be made to the decrees of councils,-if the reference be made to the bulls of popes,-if, in short, it be made to any documents, supposed to contain the infallible mind of the Church, there will be found as great a diversity of interpretation, as if the reference be made to the Holy Scriptures."—p. 70.

Well said, again. Here Mr. Seymour has his Roman Catholic friend in a very awkward position. For most assuredly his argument is unanswerable. No one can deny that the fact is so; at least no one possessing moderate information on such subjects. And assuredly it is rather an awkward position for a Romanist to occupy, when he is compelled on his own principles to maintain that all existing decrees of councils, bulls of popes, canons, liturgies, writings of the fathers, are just as inadequate as the Scriptures to the solution of difficulties, or the settlement of controversies. This leaves him a very narrow corner of ground to rest his foot upon. And thither our author follows him :

"He acknowledged frankly, and at once, that he thought my answer sufficient, so far as these writings, canons, decrees, and bulls, that have been already passed or written, are concerned. They are mere written documents, and as such they necessarily become liable to various interpretation in the hands of able and subtle men. They are all, therefore, in the same category, and liable to the same objection as the Holy Scriptures. He would fully admit this. But he thought that the great advantage of the Church of Rome consisted in having one who, as the head of the Church, was a living and speaking judge, who could at any moment determine infallibly the question under debate."-p. 72.

Our author replied, by apologizing for the character of his mind, which, he said, required some clear proof in all matters of importance. He, therefore, requested his Roman Catholic friend to state to him the grounds on which he believed in the existence of any such infallible living tribunal in the Church, as he spoke of, considering the extreme importance of the doctrine in question.

reasons.

The Roman Catholic assented to this, and said he would state his "One argument for the existence of this tribunal was necessity." The controversies, discussions, difficulties, schisms, &c., amongst Christians required some tribunal for their infallible decision; therefore such a tribunal must exist. The necessity of this inference was denied by Mr. Seymour; and his opponent was obliged to confess that it could not be defended as a logical conclusion. But he proceeded to argue that the usefulness and convenience of such a tribunal was so obvious that we must suppose a good and beneficent God must have granted it to the Church. On being pressed again, he was obliged to admit that this inference also, was not logically defensible.

"I asked him quietly,-Do you yourself think, that your proving it to be convenient, or useful, or desirable for the Church, is really proving that it does exist in the Church? Do you yourself think, that in logic you are justified in inferring the existence of any thing from the supposed usefulness of the thing? It would, I acknowledged, undoubtedly be very convenient and useful to us, that hell with all its horrors should be annihilated; but we are not justified in believing, therefore, that hell is annihilated. It would also, without any question, be useful and convenient for us beyond expression, that sin should be abolished and driven from the world; but we are not, therefore, to infer that sin is so abolished. And, in the same way, I continued, our proving the convenience or usefulness of an infallible tribunal, other and besides the Holy Scriptures, or its suitableness to the goodness of God, cannot be regarded as any adequate argument to prove that God has actually established it. The question is, not what God could or might have done, but what He has done."-pp. 76, 77.

To this there was only one answer to be returned. The Romanist was obliged to confess that his argument had failed, and was untenable. But he shortly returned to the charge on a different ground. He urged a principle with which we have been familiarized in the writings of Messrs. Newman, Ward, Oakeley, and their friends. He contended that we may assume the existence of an infallible tribunal without proof, in the same way as we assume the existence of God without proof. The existence of God is incapable of proof, and yet we believe it; why then should we not believe equally an infallible tribunal to exist? Mr. Seymour, in reply, denied that we assume the existence of a First Cause; but that, on the contrary, we prove it, except when it is already acknowledged; and therefore if the existence of an infallible tribunal on earth be parallel to this, it ought also to be proved.

We pass reluctantly over the earlier part of a very curious and able argument on the subject of the locality of this assumed

infallibility (pp. 87-99); and come to the discussion of the main question with the Professors of Dogmatic Theology and Canon Law in the Collegio Romano. We must here make rather a long extract.

"He [the Professor of Dogmatic Theology] immediately proposed to me to argue the question of the possibility of salvation in the Church of England. undertaking, on his part, to prove against me that the Church of England was not the Church of Christ; and that while I continued a member of the Church of England I could not be saved. It was a formal challenge.

"I replied that I could not assert that the Church of England was the Church of Christ—that I believed and held she was a part, a member, a branch of the Church of Christ-that she held all necessary truth, and that salvation was to be found within her, and that I was prepared to maintain thus far, but no farther. I could not defend the proposition in the form in which he proposed it.

"He said that he would shape his argument so as to embrace that view, and then, before he commenced, we agreed that nothing should be asserted respecting the doctrine of either Church, by either him or myself, without producing the canon, or decree, or bull, or article of the Church containing it. He was not to claim for the Church of Rome, nor to ascribe to the Church of England any thing whatever without producing the authoritative canon of one Church, or the authoritative article of the other. I was pledged in the same way I was careful to have this settled between us before proceeding farther, as I perceived he was disposed to enter on the question more as a practised and confident controversialist, than as a sincere inquirer. He seemed a bold, lively, warm-hearted man, experienced in the disputations of the College, and confident in his own resources. . . He commenced

according to the method still practised in the classes of the College, namely, arguing in the form of a syllogism. He said

"The Church of Christ is infallible.

"The Church of England confesses herself fallible.

"Therefore the Church of England is not the Church of Christ. "I at once pointed out the fallacy or error of his argument, showing, as I had already stated, that the Church of England did not pretend to be the Church of Christ, but only a part, or branch, or member of it; and that the fallibility of a part of the Church was no proof she was not a part of the Church, to which only, as a whole, infallibility could belong.

"He acknowledged this to be sufficient, and said he could state his argument in another form.

"The Church of Christ, in all her parts, is infallible.

"The Protestant Church of England confesses herself fallible. "Therefore the Church of England is not a part of the Church of Christ.

"I conceived that this syllogism was as faulty as the preceding one;

but that I would at once meet it by denying his minor; that is, by denying that the Protestant Church of England confesses herself to be fallible. I was not aware that she had made such a confession.

“He laughed at me good-humouredly, and with a look of triumph, and said that the Church of England had confessed it, and he could produce the Article. He referred me to Article xix.

"I produced the Article and read the words, 'As the Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith!' I said that this Article of the Church of England asserted that other Churches, and the Church of Rome in particular, had erred, and were fallible, but that she had said nothing of herself; and certainly had not, as his argument supposed and required, confessed herself fallible.

"He frankly acknowledged this to be a sufficient answer, and that his argument had failed, but said he would arrange his syllogism in another form so as to obviate this. He seemed, however, slightly, very slightly, annoyed, at finding himself so easily foiled in his first two attempts. He proceeded with great quickness to arrange his argument again.

"The Church of Christ, in all her parts, claims to be infallible. "The Protestant Church of England does not claim to be infallible. "Therefore the Church of England is not the Church of Christ. "The ordinary mode of replying to this, would have been by denying the major, namely, that the Church in all its parts claimed to be infallible; and this would have opened the whole question of the infallibility of the Church, whether, as a whole, in the Church general, or in a part, as the Church of England. I felt, however, in my secret soul, that there was another mode of dealing with it. I had in years long past pondered the matter well and thoughtfully, and many years' experience and research alike confirmed my feeling. I had never expressed it in private, nor had I employed it in public; and I thought that the present was an occasion the most fitting possible to advance it . . . So after some moments' pause for reflection, I requested my opponent to repeat and kindly write his syllogism on paper.

"He wrote it as follows:

"The Church of Christ, in all her parts, claim to be infallible. "The Church of England does not claim to be infallible.

"Therefore the Church of England is no part of the Church of Christ.

66

'Having read it carefully, I drew my pen over the word 'England', in the minor and in the conclusion, and writing the word 'Rome' in its stead, I returned the paper as my answer. It was as follows:

"The Church of Christ, in all her parts, claims to be infallible. "The Church of Rome does not claim to be infallible.

"Therefore the Church of Rome is not part of the Church of Christ. "On handing it to him in this altered form, I remarked quietly, that if his syllogism was legitimate as against the Church of England, it