the divine protection, and shall not the Church under the everlasting and unchanging light of the gospel have even more?

Such is the line of argument adopted in this question, not by irresponsible individuals only, but under the sanction of the highest authorities in the Roman Church. On the passage in Deuteronomy above cited, the following annotation occurs in the Douay Bible. I quote from an edition " authorised by the Right Rev. N. Gibson, Vicar Apostolic of the Northern District revised and corrected by the Revs. T. Robinson and Vincent Glover :

"Here we see what authority God was pleased to give to the Church-guides of the Old Testament, in deciding, without appeal, all controversies relating to the law, promising that they should not err therein,-punishing with death all who proudly refuse to obey their decisions; and surely He has not done less with the Church guides of the New Testament." 1

Proceeding, then, to particulars, the parallel is thus filled up. (1.) The charter of divine authority given to the Christian Church is found in the words of the Lord Jesus to His disciples, when He said, "He that heareth you, heareth me ; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth Him that sent me." And again, "He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth Him that sent me." 2

(2.) The assurance of the divine presence with the Christian Church is found in the Lord's parting words immediately previous to His ascension. "Lo! I am with you always, even to the end of the world." And again, "I will not leave you

66

' In other editions this note has been modified. I now transcribe from one printed in Belfast in 1839, and published with the approbation of Right Rev. Dr. Denvir." In this the note appears thus, the clause "punishing with death all who proudly refuse to obey their decisions" being suppressed :

"Here we see what authority God was pleased to give to the Church-guides of the Old Testament, in deciding without appeal all controversies relating to the law, promising that they should not err therein; and surely He has not done less for the Church-guides of the New Testament."

St. Luke x. 16; St. John xiii. 20.

comfortless, I will come to you. If a man love me, he will keep my words, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."1

(3.) The promise of divine protection to the Christian Church is found in the words of Jesus to Simon Peter, "Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'

The parallel is complete, and Roman Catholic writers are fond of urging and enlarging upon it, as the ground of the alleged scriptural authority and covenanted infallibility of the Christian Church, to decide all controversies, and to punish even with death-when this can be done with safety to the faithful—all refractory and obstinate heretics. It is a fruitful theme. All who impugn the decisions or resist the authority of the Church, and all who excite others so to do, are described as partaking in the rebellion, and therefore well deserving of the fate of Dathan and Abiram; while all schismatics who violate the Church's unity are represented as most justly incurring the punishment which fell on king Jeroboam.

This is, in no ordinary degree, imposing; but now let us try the aqplication of it. And here the Jewish part of the subject becomes highly instructive, because of certain facts, of a very unequivocal character, which have occurred in the history of the Jewish Church.

The divine commandment was, as we have seen, that in matters of controversy appeal should be made to the great ecclesiastical council, under the presidency of the high priest for the time being; and that the sentence there delivered should be considered final. Under this charter, the council so constituted claimed for their decisions all the infallibility of a divine sentence; and in the outset, in the days of Moses and Joshua, they were actually guided by express communications from heaven. These were given sometimes in audible words from the Lord, sometimes by the Urim and Thummim in the consecrated breastplate of the high priest. Afterwards, when such communications ceased, how often, and under what cirSt. Matt. xxviii. 20; St. John xiv. 18, 23.

2 St. Matt. xvi. 18.

cumstances, the Jewish ecclesiastical council exercised their authority, we have no means of knowing, because no special cases of reference to them are cited in the sacred narrative.

Still, they had the abiding assurance of the divine presence: "I am with you, saith the Lord of hosts; according to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so my Spirit remaineth among you;" and at last we do meet with a case, a remarkable case, of a controversy which arose at Jerusalem, and was referred to the great Church council, with the high priest at its head. It was the controversy which arose upon the claim of Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah, the Son of the living God. This claim was warmly espoused by some, and as vehemently denied and resisted by others; the whole city was moved; and after several discussions in the streets, in the temple, and elsewhere, the matter was brought before the proper tribunal. "They led Jesus away to the high priest, and with Him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders, and the scribes." Here was the great ecclesiastical council of the Jewish Church, in the regular Aaronic and Levitical succession from the days of Moses; and doubtless there were many among the Jewish people who regarded the authoritative decisions of that council as the expression, without risk of error, of the mind of God. Doubtless there were many ready to plead the language of Moses and the prophets, as well as the traditions of their fathers, in support of the infallibility of their Church.

1

Facts speak. To the high priest's first address Jesus answered nothing. His accusers,were heard; and then the high priest said, "Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee?" But Jesus held His peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, and said unto Him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I AM; and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, and said, What need we any further witnesses ?—ye have heard the blasphemy; what think ye? And they all condemned Him to be guilty of death." 2

1 St. Mark xiv. 53.

2 St. Mark xiv. 60-64.

They all condemned Him to be guilty of death! Such was the unanimous decision of this council, the catholic consent of this infallible Church: that instead of being the Son of God indeed, as He said He was, Jesus was an impostor, and advanced His pretensions with such arrogancy as amounted to blasphemy. By their law, death was the punishment of the convicted blasphemer, and thus they arrived at the conclusion, and gave forth the sentence, that the prisoner at their bar was guilty of death.

This brings the matter to a crisis. If they were right, forming their judgment under divine influence, and coming to a decision in accordance with the mind of God, then Jesus was not the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed, but an arrogant blasphemer. On the other hand, if Jesus was indeed the Christ, then their decision was fatally wrong. If their decision was right, what is to be said of Christianity? If their decision in such a matter was wrong, what is to be said of ecclesiastical infallibility?

Now we know that their decision was wrong; and their descendants, even the whole nation, have been enduring the bitter consequences of it from that day until now. According to their dreadful imprecation, His blood has been upon them and upon their children, in the way of still unexpiated vengeance.1

What, then, becomes of the infallibility of their Church? Such an interpretation of their charter as would represent infallibility as inherent in their great ecclesiastical council, whatever might be the character of its members, must be relinquished. The fact now before us compels us so to interpret their charter as to render it compatible with their fatal mistake. Were they partially right in their decision, and can any limitation or explanation be found on that side? No. They were utterly wrong, and the explanation must be wholly on the other side. To what end, then, it may be asked, were the statutes and judgments to be observed by the Jewish people given in such copious detail as we find them in the Books of Moses? To what end were the miraculous communications by Urim and Thummim circumstantially recorded? Chapter after chapter is occupied with statutes and ordinances, moral, ceremonial, and judicial,

1 St. Matt. xxvii. 25.

involving general principles, and entering into the most minute particulars. It is an obvious inquiry, Where was the object of all this, and of commanding the people to attend to it all, and teach their children to attend to it all, if there was a living tribunal among them, invested with absolute authority to decide?

Moses, recapitulating before his death, and referring the people of Israel to all that had been said and done during his wondrous ministry among them, said, "These are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments which the Lord your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go in to possess it; that thou mightest fear the Lord thy God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command thee; thou, and thy son, and thy son's son, all the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged. Hear, therefore, O Israel, and observe to do it, that it may be well with thee, and that ye may increase mightily, as the Lord God of thy fathers hath promised thee, in the land that floweth with milk and honey. Hear, O Israel! the Lord our God is one Lord; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart; and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.'

This would have been vain and useless if the authority given to the ecclesiastical council, and guaranteed to their legitimate successors, had been absolute. Here, therefore, we find the true limitation, a right understanding of which will harmonise the charter of the Church with the facts of the history.

The authority vested in the Church council was not absolute, but relative. It was not given alone, but in company with, and of course in reference to, the written law. He who gave autho

1 Deut. vi. 1-9.