lectures on the divine persons and essence, on the eternal and necessary generation of the word, &c? This indeed would be folly, and we should speak a language unintelligible to our hearers and ourselves. In this, and all similar cases, the only rational method is, to show that the contested doctrine is proposed to our belief by an infallible authority. This undoubtedly would be the Chaplain's method in asserting against Arians, Socinians, and modern sectaries, the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the eternity of future punishments; and such likewise is the method, by which we endeavour to establish the tenets, which he calls the discriminating doctrines of our Church.

Apply these principles to all his reasonings in his 20th, 21st, and 22d pages, and see what they will come to. Set him in competition with a Deist, an Arian, a Socinian; and how will he extricate himself from his own arguments, when urged to subvert the infallibility of Scripture, or the Christian doctrines of original sin, of the Trinity, the Incarnation and redemption of mankind? "Religion and reason can never be at variance," will they say with the Chaplain, "because the most rational religion must always be the best." "The language of reason was never yet rejected with impunity-she will be heard-she must be respected," &c. Do then some controverted texts of Scripture make the Trinity and Incarnation of the Son of God as evident to reason as it is plain to the most ordinary capacity, that three divine persons really distinct cannot be one and the same God? or that the eternal and immortal God cannot become a mortal and suffering man, which is "a stumbling block to the Jews, and to the Greeks foolishness ?"*

Will the Chaplain reply to the Deist, and tell him, that the infallibility of Scripture warrants his belief of these seemingly absurd tenets? He will be answered, that he begs the question and in his own language, that reason assures

* 1 Cor. i. 23,

him, (the Deist,) with greater evidence than the infallibility of Scripture is proved, "that the Almighty requires not our belief of doctrines which stand in direct contradiction to the only means he has allowed us of arriving at truth-our senses and understanding."

Nor will the Deist stop here; he will add, that the pretended infallibility of Scripture must prevent the Chaplain from examining the tenets of the Christian Church. "Sheltered under the garb of so gorgeous a prerogative, impressed upon the yielding mind of youth by men of sense and virtue; backed moreover by the splendour of supposed miracles and the horrors of damnation, opinions the most absurd and contradictory must frequently dazzle and overawe the understanding. Amidst the fascinating glare of so mighty a privilege, the eye of reason becomes dim and inactive." Can the Chaplain, or any other person, tell us, why a Bolingbroke, or a Hume, had not as good a right to use this argument against the general doctrines of Christianity, as the Chaplain had to urge it against the discriminating doctrines of the Catholic Church?

Such are the difficulties in which men involve them. selves, by extending the exercise of reason to matters beyond its competency. Let this excellent gift of our provi dent and bountiful Creator be employed, as has been said before, in examining the grounds for believing the Scriptures to be infallible; but let it go no farther, when that infallibility is fully evinced. In the same manner, let your reason investigate with the utmost attention and sincere desire of discovering truth, the motives for and against the Church's infallibility; but if your inquiries terminate in a full conviction of her having received this great prerogative from Jesus Christ, "the author and finisher of our faith," submit with respect and docility to her decisions. The Chaplain himself, when less wrapt in extacy with the beauties of reason, can acknowledge this: "Show me," says he, "the proofs of this infallibility, and if I do not

admit them with every faculty of my soul, you have my leave to brand me with the pride of lucifer."

You will not expect me to enter fully into this subject, and point out either to you or the Chaplain, the proofs which he requires. Neither my leisure nor inclination, now allow me to undertake, what has been done by much abler hands. The Chaplain, and you too, I hope, know where to look for these proofs. Let him peruse the controversial works of Bellarmine, Bossuet, Nicole and Bergier, Mumford's Question of Questions, Manning's and Hawarden's writings on this subject; let him contrast them with Albertinus and Claude; with Chillingworth, Usher, and Bishop Hurd. There is no answering for the impressions which the minds of different men may receive from perusing the same authors. I can only say, for my own part, that as far as my reading on this subject has extended, I have generally found, on one side, candour in stating the opposite doctrine, fairness in quotations, clearness and fulness in the answers, and consistency in maintaining and defending controverted points. On the other hand, I have often met with gross misrepresentation, unfair quotations, partial answers, and inconsistency of character in the controvertist; impugning and defending sometimes on the principles of a Protestant, sometimes on those of a Socinian or Deist, sometimes pretending to model his religion on the belief of the four first ages of Christianity; and at other times finding corruptions immediately after, if not co-eval with the apostolical times.

On this subject, therefore, whatever disadvantage it may be to our cause, I shall confine myself solely to the defensive, and endeavour to satisfy you, that the Chaplain has given no sufficient reason to shake the stability of your faith, with respect to the infallibility of the Church.

He observes, that the few Scriptural texts, " which seem to countenance infallibility, appeared no longer conclusive than he refused to examine them.” Why he ever refused

to examine them he is yet to explain; especially as the duty of his profession, and the particular course of his stu dies, called for a more attentive and fuller examination of them, than the generality of Christians are obliged to.. Surely he does not mean to insinuate, that he was ever discouraged from, or deprived of the means of making inquiry. Nor do I know why he mentions only a few texts, as countenancing the doctrine of infallibility, since the writers above named allege so many both of the Old and New Testament. The author of the Catholic Scripturist, whom the Chaplain might have found an adversary worthy of his Chillingworth and Usher, enumerates thirty texts to prove this point, besides others, to which he refers. Let us however hear the Chaplain's animadversions on the few he has thought proper to consider.

Amongst other proofs of her infallibility, the Catholic Church alleges these words of Christ to St. Peter, (Matt. xvi. 18.) "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The Chaplain observes that this text is wrongfully translated, and that the Greek word hades MANIFESTLY imports death, and not hell. The alteration is not very material in itself, and might well pass unnoticed, were it not for the sake of showing how unsafe it is to trust to private interpretation of Scripture, in opposition to the general sense and understanding of the Church in all its ages. The Chaplain has taken up this interpretation from Besa, who, I believe, first suggested it. But I would fain ask these sagacious Greek critics, whether hell is not meant by that place, out of which the rich man (Luke xvi.) lifted up his eyes, and seeing Lazarus, wished he might be allowed to cool with water his tongue; for "I am tormented," said he, “in this flame."* Was not hell that place of torments, which he wished his brethren might be warned

*Luke xvi. 24.

F

to avoid? Now what says the Greek text in this place? “And in hell, & Tw adn, lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off." If I did not deem this Scripture passage sufficient to prove that the word hades does not manifestly import death, I could add many others equally conclusive; and could support them with the authority of some of the best Greek authors, as well as of Calvin, and even of Besa, in contradiction to himself. Among the moderns, the Chaplain will not dispute the palm of Hebrew and Greek literature with Dr. Lowth, now bishop of London, or with his learned commentator, professor Michaelis of Gottingen. Let him read the Bishop's elegant work de sacra Poesi Hebræorum, prælect. 7; and the professor in his annotations on that prælection, and he will find them both decided in their opinion, that the Greek word hades, as well as its correspondent Hebrew one, denotes not death, but the subterraneous receptacle of departed souls, which is pointedly expressive of the popular idea of hell.

But let us admit the Chaplain's interpretation; let Christ's words import, in their obvious sense, that the Church shall never fail, not that she shall never err. Does he not know, that the Church fails principally by erring? How did she fail in the countries overrun with Arianism? Was it not by error in faith? and so in all countries corrupted by heresy. Thus likewise would the whole visible Church have failed, had she proposed any error to be believed as an article of faith. "For to do this is to propose a lie, as upheld by divine authority; which is to fall no less foully than he should fall, who should teach God to be an affirmer and confirmer of lies. For whatsoever point any Church held, as a point of their faith, they held it as a divine verity, affirmed and revealed by God. Therefore, if, in any age, the visible Church held any error for a point of faith, it did fail most miserably."

*

Mumford, Quest. of Quest. sect. 15.