circumcision-the dissension was at length allayed by a general agreement, that an appeal should be made to the church at Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas were deputed to consult the apostles and elders of the church on the question. The church at Antioch acted upon the decision addressed to them by letter, from the apostles and elders and brethren at Jerusalem. The reason is obvious, the apostles were then the living representatives and chosen witnesses of their divine Master; and it was they in fact, not the church of Jerusalem, which the other churches consulted. Loud indeed would have been the boasting, if the advocates of the supremacy of Rome, could have pointed to any such facts as these in its favour!

The plea of catholicity, when fully examined, is of no better use to the cause than that of antiquity. The mere popularity of a sentiment is no proof of its truth. In this case the claim is utterly destitute of foundation. There were Christian churches existing, we have seen, before the church of Rome. There have always been contemporary Christian churches which have held no connection with it and as an excellent writer; well states the case, "Admit in one instance the genuineness of personal religion, and the possibility of final salvation, within the pale of any of these communities-and the Roman church is no longer the Catholic church, deny that possibility -and the stigma of systematic intolerance is fixed upon it for ever!"

3. In vain do we seek to learn from the church of Rome where her infallibility lies. Some assert

that it is in the Pope himself-some in general councils convened by his authority-others in the teaching of the Fathers of the church. Strange as it may appear, the differences of opinion amongst Roman Catholics on this subject, are often determined by geographical boundaries. If I ask a Roman Catholic in Italy where infallibility rests, he instantly answers in the Pope personally, speaking ex cathedra, that is from his chair or throne. Put the same question to a French Catholic, and he will decidedly deny the personal infallibility, and declare "that the decisions of the Pope in points of faith are not infallible, unless they be attended with the consent of the church." It matters little, however, to which of the parties the honour is assigned. History furnishes abundant proof that as the decisions of one Pope have frequently contradicted those of another-so have the decrees of one council frequently contradicted those of another. The same want of harmony of judgment is found among the Fathers of the Roman Church.

Truth is always the same. If then the church, whether represented by her Popes, or councils, or Fathers, had been the infallible depositary of the truth, the judgments pronounced by her several authorities, would at least have been harmonious upon all essential matters of faith and discipline;

but instead of harmony we find almost universal discord; scarcely two of these authorities agreeing even in determining precisely where the infallibility of the church resides. It is almost superfluous to remark, that the same difference of opinion appears amongst these uncertain guides, on other topics of equal importance.-One instance however, we mention, because it relates to the manner in which the church is wont to deal with the Bible. Pope Sixtus the Fifth, after setting aside the original Scriptures in Greek, published an edition of the vulgate, though full of gross errors, as the only true, genuine, and anthoritative Scriptures. This is one act of infallibility! In a few years, Pope Clement the Eighth discovered many great inaccuracies in the Bible of his predecessor, and published another edition professing to be purged of its inaccuracies, and yet confessed by Clement himself to be still imperfect! This is another act of infallibility: infallibility against infallibility, and both against reason and the word of God.

In truth, we contend that the hypothesis is utterly impracticable. If we admit that God has always had in the world a spiritual and invisible church, eonsisting of all who are Christians not merely in name or profession, but in sincerity and truth, and that the members of this church, taught by the same divine Spirit, are infallibly guided into all essential truth; yet how is it possible to know

what has been and is, their unanimous opinion? How are we to know in the first instance who they are, without consulting the Scriptures? Where has God except in the Bible described either the characters, or the opinions of those who belong to the church of the "First-born written in heaven?" If then I am to shape my creed by their model, I must first learn, by a careful perusal of the word, the distinctive features by which they may be known, and the peculiar sentiments they may be expected to maintain. If the Author of the Bible had ever designed that we should receive the interpretation of his word, from the members of the true church, would they not have been distinguished by such marks of infallibility as could never be mistaken?

In opposition to the arrogant and impious claim of the church of Rome, we maintain the sufficiency of the word of God as the true rule of faith and practice. In support of our principle we shall first summon as our witnesses, those very Fathers, most of whom the church has canonized, and to all of whom she challenges the appeal, Tertullian, says, "I adore the plenitude of scripture." "What are those things, which we ought to inquire into?" is the expression of Eusebius;" even those which are to be found in the Scriptures: those things which are not there to be found, let us not seek after." Athanasius, one of the most revered of of the church's learned doctors, says, "Learn only cl

from the Scriptures; for the instructions you will find there are sufficient." Father Ambrose inquires, "How can we make any use of any thing which is not in Scripture?" Jerome expressly declares, that "the Holy Scripture settles the rule of our doctrine." Theophilus holds the following strong language:-"It is the suggestion of a diabolical spirit, to think that any thing beside the Scripture has divine authority." Basil plainly declares, "It is a manifest fall from the faith, and the clear vice of pride, either to refuse any thing of what the Scriptures contain, or to introduce any thing which is not written." The following striking passage occurs in the Homilies of St. Chrysostom, a Father of the Eastern church, but one whose authority is acknowledged by the church of Rome, All Christians ought to have recourse to the Scriptures; for now, since heresy has infected the churches, the divine Scriptures alone can afford a proof of genuine Christianity, and a refuge to those who are desirous of arriving at the true faith. Formerly it might have been ascertained, by various means, which was the true church; but at the present there is no other method left to those who are willing to discover the true church of Christ, but by the Scriptures alone. And why? Because heresy has all outward observances in common with her. If a man, therefore, be desirous of knowing the true church, how will he be able to do it, amidst so great a re