individual or collection of individuals. "_"Therefore I have no mode of being certain that I know the doctrine of Christ, and since I cannot believe with perfect certainty what I cannot know with perfect certainty; and since certain belief is absolutely required for Faith, it is impossible for me to have Faith." So much for what he calls our "assuming that which is in question."

"2. Upon the strength of that assumption, we interpret certain passages of Scripture, so that they are made to prove the existence of such a judge." Then if the existence of this judge is proved by the interpretation of texts of Scripture, and every person is privileged to interpret the texts of Scripture according to his own opinion, why is Mr. White so inconsistent with himself, as to call our doctrine unscriptural? Do we not prove it according to his own principles from the Scriptures themselves? But what he insinuates here is in plain terms an untruth, because we do not assume the truth of the question, but we prove the truth of the position. Nor is it because even of this proof that we do so interpret those texts, which, by the way, he has taken good care to omit, but we interpret them thus, because from the beginning they had been interpreted so by the companions and the disciples of the inspired penmen, and by their successors in every intervening

age.

"3. You are then in doubt as to the identity of the judge himself, without being able to determine by any fixed rule, whether the supernatural gift of infallibility belongs to the Pope alone, or to the Pope and the general council."

This is also an untruth. It is painful to be under the necessity of using such language, but when a writer is so far lost to principle and to shame as to make such gross and palpable misstatements, there is no other phraseology which will express the character of his production. The rule is fixed, and plain, the judge is the supreme tribunal of the Church, and the Church is not the head without the members, nor the members without the head, but both united. The note which he appends to this assertion is but an extension of the misrepresentation.

Uncertainty of Roman Catholic Infallibility:

"Nothing can be more certain than the uncertainty of the Roman Catholic Church, as to the seat and source of her pretended infallibility. If any thing can be deduced from the vague and unsettled principles of her divines, on this subject, it would appear that infallibility finally resolves itself into the authority of the Pope. For, as no council whatever is deemed infallible till the Pope has sanctioned its decrees, the pretended assistance from Heaven must apply to that discriminating

oracle, on whose decision the supernatural authority of the council depends.

"The opening speech of the papal legates who presided at the council of Trent represents the expected inspiration as conditional; a very natural caution, in the representatives of that see, which has always most strenuously opposed the notion that the Pope is inferior to a general council. After a candid acknowledgement of the erroneous corruptions of the Roman Catholic Clergy, which the reader will find hereafter, the legates speak of the expected inspiration in the following words::

Quare nisi ille spiritus nos apud nosmetipsos primum condemnaverit, nondum illum ingressum esse ad nos affimare possumus, ac ne ingressurum quidem, si peccata nostra audire recusamus. Idem enim dicetur nobis, quod populo veteri per prophetam Ezechielam est dictum, cum nondum agnitis suis sceleribus. Dominum per prophetam interrogare vellent, Venerunt viri Israel ad interrogandum Dominum, et sederunt coram me. Hoec autem dicit Dominus: numquid ad interrogandum me venistis? Vivo ego, dicit Dominus, quia non respondebo vobis. Sequitur autem, si judicas eos, abominationes patrum illorum ostende illis. In quibus verbis ostendit Deus, quare noluerit respondere illis, quia nondum scilicet abominationes suas et patrum suorum audierant. Quare cum idem Dei Spiritus sit, qui tunc debat responsa, et quem nunc nos sedentes coram Domino invocamus, quid nobis faciendum sit, ut propria responsa habeamus, ex his videtis........Quia vero nonnullos nunc videmus, sua primum peccata, et nostri ordinis graviter deflentes, atque Dei misericordiam omnibus votis implorantes, ideo quidem in maxima spe sumus, advenisse, quem invocamus, Dei Spiritum.-Concilia per Labbeum et Gossartium, Tom. xiv, p. 738.

"It is clear that the legates grounded their hopes of inspiration for the Council, on the marks of repentance which they perceived in some of its members. Must then Roman Catholics ascertain the spiritual condition of their oracles, before they admit them to the privilege of infallibility? It should seem, however, that the Popes are not subject to such restrictions in the use of their infallible sanction; else, a man with the moral tact of Alexander VI, would have been subject to strange. mistakes, in calculating the fitness of the bishops in council, to receive an inspiration totally dependent on moral character."

I have frequently before exhibited the sophistry of this man by applying his terms to our civil institutions. Allow me to use this method with the first paragraph of his note.

If any thing can be deduced from the vague and unsettled prin

ciples of American writers on the powers of Congress, it would appear that the legislative authority resolves itself finally into the authority of the President, so that the law is an emanation from him only. For as no legislative acts of the majority of the Senate and House of Representatives are deemed binding until they have been sanctioned by the President, whatever might be said in their courts, or written in their books asserting that the legislative authority resides in the Congress which consists of both houses and the President, must in fact be applied to the President alone, because it is by his authority the acts become laws and are carried into execution."

All this flimsy sophistry would be destroyed by the simple fact, that, if the President were to attempt to make a law without the concurrence of the majority in both houses, the attempt would be futile, and none would feel himself called on to obey. In like manner, if the Pope were to issue a decision, from which the majority of the Bishops were to dissent, or to which they refused their concurrence, such decision would not be an act of the Church, and of course would not bind persons to obedience.

The latter portion of this note is, if possible, a more despicable piece of deceit. The "candid acknowledgement of the enormous corruptions of the Roman Catholic Clergy," is grossly exaggerated by the writer; but what were the corruptions? A change of faith-a corruption of doctrine? By no means. The legates who candidly avow the misconduct of several of the clergy, proclaim with the same voice the pure preservation of the doctrine of the Church. Nor was the misconduct of the clergy so enormous, nor were their corruptions of morals so great or so general, as were those of the self-called reformers: although there had been grievous crimes committed by several Roman Catholic clergymen, yet the great majority of the body were men of virtue, and several were eminent for the most edifying sanctity.

It is also falsely suggested, that, because the legates exhorted the members of the council to repentance and virtue, as one mode of obtaining the blessing of heaven to lead them to truth, prudence, and knowledge; that they were, therefore, doubtful as to whether the Pope and Council were infallible. But here I cannot repress my astonishment at the inconsistency of White, who is charging our Church with arrogance, in alleging that the Pope and Council will give an infallibly true judgment upon doctrine, and yet in the very passage attempts to show that we do not hold the tenet which he condemns us for holding!!! It might be as well to translate the passage which he quotes and garbles: but even as it is, it will not establish his conclusion:

"Wherefore, unless that Spirit will first have led us to self-condemnation, we cannot affirm that he hath as yet entered unto us, nor indeed that he will enter, if we refuse to hear the voice of our sins. It will be said to us as it was said to the people of old by the prophet Ezekiel, when not having as yet acknowledged their sins, they desired to ask the Lord by the prophet:-'The men of Israel came to ask of the Lord, and they sat before me. But thus saith the Lord: have you come to inquire of me? As I live, saith the Lord, I will not answer you. It followeth: if thou judgest them, show unto them the abominations of their fathers.' In which words the Lord showeth why he would not answer them; because, to wit, since it is the same Spirit of God who then used to give answer, and also we now invoke, being seated before the Lord; you see from those things what we ought to do, that we might have proper answers. And since we now behold some bewailing, first their own sins, and those of our order, and imploring by all mode of prayers the mercy of God, therefore we are in the greatest confidence that the Spirit of God which we invoke hath come amongst us."

Such is the passage upon which this man founds his assertion, that "the legates grounded their hopes of inspiration for the council, on the marks of repentance which they perceived in some of its members." If the prelates are bad men, the Holy Ghost, he says, cannot guide them; though St. John says, he guided the wicked high priest of the Jews to a correct decision, because of the office which he held; and if they are good men, it is only a doubt that they will be guided. White does not like the guidance at all. But the ground of the confidence of the legates was not founded in this passage, which was only an exhortation to virtue, but in those passages in which they referred to the express and distinct promises of Christ. Such as that of Pope Paul, in his bull for assembling the Council, ut cum illic in nomine Domini essemus congregati; ipse sicut promisit Dominus in medio nostrum effuturus, “that when we would be gathered in the name of the Lord, the Lord himself, as he promised, would be in the midst of us." Thus it is untrue to say, that Catholics are unable to determine where infallibility resides, as it is also untrue to say that we must know the virtue of the Bishops, before we can know if their tribunal is properly constituted. We depend upon the promises of Christ, and not upon the virtue of the Bishops.

The futility of the fourth proposition has been so amply exhibited in what I have previously written that I shall not take it up again.

The fifth and final observation which he makes is an aggregate of untruths. First, it is untrue that "the only sensible mark of a legitimate

council is the approbation of the Pope." Its legitimacy may be recognised by a variety of other sensible marks, of which I shall instance merely two. It might be recognised by the very view: as in case there was an actual majority of the prelates of the Church present, acting in harmony and with full liberty; it might be recognised by the sequel: as in case of the presence of only a minority but the approbation and adoption of their acts by the great body of the absent prelates. Suppose the See of Rome vacant in the first instance, the legitimacy of the council would be known, and yet there would have been then no Papal approbation. The next untruth is, that the mere undisputed possession of the See of Rome is the only sensible mark of the legitimacy of the Pope. The third untruth is to assert that infallibility is according to Catholic tenets entailed upon that candidate who obtains such possession. The fourth untruth is, that no see has been oftener polluted by proflgacy and wickedness than the See of Rome. The fifth is, that the Pope is our living rule of faith. When nonsense like this is put into our mouths by those who, at least, ought to know that they bear false witnesses against us, we are indeed made to appear ridiculous: but, I trust, it may without irreverence be said, that the spouse of Christ then resembles the Saviour, when clothed in the garment of a fool; he lost none of his wisdom, but the scoffer greatly increased his own criminality. Catholics have no living rule, but they have a living tribunal; a living judge, but that tribunal of judgment is the Church; and that Church is not merely its head or chief pastor, but it is the head and other pastors united.

White affects to ridicule the distinction between infallibility and impeccability. Though we are not called upon by our tenet to look upon the Pope as either impeccable or infallible, yet we can conceive the ground of the distinction, and it was taught us by the Saviour, when he told his hearers that the Scribes and Pharisees sat upon the chair of Moses, to do according to their words, but not according to their works. Fortified by such an admonition from such a source, we can read the commencement of the next paragraph with which we are favored, with pity for the pride and arrogance of those who vilify the teaching of the Son of God, page 108:

"The strength of mind which enables the reformers to disregard the generally received distinction between exemption from doctrinal errors, and liability to misconduct, cannot be adequately valued by those who have never imbibed that scholastic prejudice.

White had previously boasted of his ignorance of scholastic knowledge, but really I was not prepared to learn that he would disregard