thing is captivating to human weakness centuries, a very large minority have rewhich tends to substitute the excitement of fused to believe in the existence of an inthe imagination for the devotion of the fallible Church. Of the same body, how heart. We have no doubt that the minds many have denied the doctrines comprised of the Israelites were deeply impressed by in the Apostles' Creed? Probably not one the sight of the golden calf, and by the in a hundred. And if we subtract the prerites of Moloch or Ashtaroth. The history judiced, and the careless, from this comof religion, in short, is but a series of di-paratively small number, we shall really vine revelations, each in its turn defaced and corrupted by the inveterate repugnance of mankind for the pure and rational worship of a spiritual being.

find reason to doubt whether the Bible ever leads a candid and sincere inquirer into dangerous error. But be this as it may,

the facts are undeniable; and the conclusion, reason as we will, is irresistible. Difficult as it may be to interpret the Scriptures, to ascertain the existence of an inspired interpreter is more difficult still.

The great argument against the expediency of private judgment is, of course, the variety of dissensions and errors to which it leads. Catholics ask, whether it is not incredible that this should be the will of The weight of this consideration is inProvidence-whether it is not certain that creased tenfold when we find that, accordthere must be somewhere a constantly ac- ing to the Roman Catholic, Ecclesiastical cessible oracle, able to solve each new Infallibility is, to many well-meaning men, doubt, and detect each new heresy as it not merely a doubtful support, but a new arises. We shall not pause to discuss the and formidable danger. The Church of abstract question. We shall not decide Rome has determined, that submission to whether an infallible Church, possessing her authority is an essential, as well as an such sanctions that no rational being could assistance, to happiness in a future state. at once profess Christianity and doubt her It is thus that the most trifling misconcep authority, would have been a benefit to tion becomes a fatal heresy, by infusing mankind. One thing is certain: the Church distrust of the Church. It is thus the most of Rome does not possess such sanctions. Thousands of the best and wisest men that ever existed, have lived happily, and died peacefully, in open dissent from her doctrines. Whether they were right or wrong, their example is amply sufficient to show that the most patient and unprejudiced inquirer will frequently be unable to convince himself of the existence of an infallible Church. Even if we go no further, the difficulty is clearly unresolved. Incredible as it may be, that Providence has appointed no certain guide to salvation, it is far more incredible that Providence has made the attempt and failed.

faultless orthodoxy ceases to be a security, if it is not the consequence of implicit belief in her infallibility. Surely we must pause before we admit the monstrous conclusion, that an institution, which has narrowed and limited the path of safety, was intended by Divine goodness to smooth and secure it.

Even if we acknowledge the Church of Rome to be in theory an infallible guide, this does not make her so in practice. It is one thing to possess unerring means of discovering the truth, and another to possess unerring means of communicating it. Catholics indeed, are apt to speak as if their But we may go much further. What we oracular Church were continually at their have said of Ecclesiastical Infallibility is elbow. They seem to imagine that an Irish far from applying to those great doctrines peasant, or a South American guacho, or which are common to Catholics and Pro-a Paria convert at Goa, can put himself in testants. It is certain that there are secta communication with the Pope whenever he rians who profess to draw opinions from wants advice or consolation. But we know, the Bible, which would reduce Christianity and they know, that the truth is far otherto the level of Deism. We do not wish to wise. The uneducated Catholic is compeljudge such persons harshly or hastily. But led to receive all the doctrines of his Church it cannot be denied that they form a very upon the bare word of his Confessor. It is small minority; and that few eminent not pretended that a Priest is supernaturalnames are to be found among them. This ly inspired in instructing his flock, or suis a distinction which no Catholic can deny. pernaturally restrained from betraying No Catholic can deny that, where one Christian has doubted the great truths of the Gospel, fifty have doubted the authority of the Church of Rome. Of those who have professed Christianity during the last three

them. Instances of public scandal have proved that all Jesuits are not so learned or high-minded as "Father Oswald." Hence nine Catholics in ten must submit to have their faith dictated, not by an infallible

Church, but by a mortal like themselves-leaves Providence to protect him from dean instructor always fallible, often ignorant, luding himself. and sometimes interested or malevolent. One such instance is enough to show that a Catholic is not safe from error merely because his church is infallible; for he can never be sure that he has received her true and genuine decisions.

Catholics, we are aware, will contend that, when a layman acts in good faith upon the advice of his Confessor, the guilt of his errors will rest upon the Priest who misleads him. We might retort, that when a Protestant does his best to understand his Bible, he cannot be held answerable for the weakness of his intellect. But this is not the point in dispute. In both cases mischief is done, let who will be answerable for it. The question is, which is the more common and the more probable mischief?

But even when the decrees of the Church are correctly received, we do not see why they are less liable to misconstruction than the Bible. The wisest Catholic, when he has ascertained what they are, must use his own understanding to expound and apply them. This is what Protestants do when they consult the Scriptures; and what Catholics think so absurd and so perilous. But, it will be replied, the Commentary of the Church gives us the meaning of the Bible in less ambiguous language, On points of real importance we deny that this is possible. No language can be less ambiguous than that in which the Bible states those religious truths which practically concern mankind. If there are men who persist in explaining away those truths when declared by an inspired book, we cannot see why they might not explain them away when declared by an infallible Church. If there are men who will not believe that St. Paul means what he says, we do not know what is to make them believe that the Council of Trent meant what they said. If a Socinian cannot understand the assertion,that the Author of Christianity "thought it no robbery to be equal with God," we know no language by which the Church could make him credit her belief in the Trinity. If the command "Do this in remembrance of me," is not explicit enough for the Quaker, we cannot perceive by what form of words the Church can convince him that she thinks it his duty to attend the sacrament. An angel from heaven could aot persuade men who will not comprehend what is plainly told them; and we know that inspiration has declared, that when conscience and common sense are silenced, an angel from heaven would plead in vain.

There is no doubt that an ignorant layman is as likely to blunder as an ignorant Confessor; but, if he is a conscientious man, he will at least do his best to be right. He will not go astray from indolence, or recklessness, or wilful obstinacy. Every motive which can mislead a sincere man in judging for himself, may mislead him in judging for another. But there are a thousand motives which might induce a man to deceive another, which would not influence him in deciding for himself. Our meaning will be best illustrated by examples. Neither Catholics nor Protestants can deny that many may be cited on both sides. If Cromwell thought it right to sack Drogheda because Joshua sacked Ai, did not Sixtus V. offer public thanksgivings for the massacre of St. Bartholomew ? If Balfour justified the murder of an Archbishop because Samuel hewed Agag in pieces, did not Clement and Ravaillac commit regicide at the instigation of their spiritual advisers? Now, we leave it to any impartial reader to decide which error is the more natural, and The truth is, that Popes, Councils, and the more consistent with sincerity-the Confessors, are all insufficient to insure blind credulity which follows evil counsel, true, or detect erroneous belief. The more or the impious sophistry which is its own we examine their nature, the more condeceiver? The ignorant bigotry of Charles vinced we shall be, that they are the expeIX. or Philip II. is surely a thousand times dients of human weakness, ever anxious to more likely to find imitators than the per- interpose some visible interpreter between verse fanaticism of Knipperdoling or Hugh itself and the spiritual world. The more Peters. We therefore think it clear that we examine their effects, the more conwhere one well-meaning Protestant is mis- vinced we shall be, that they are the expeled by his Bible, ten well-meaning Catho- ents are. There is a point at which lanlics are likely to be misled by a wicked guage ceases to communicate the workings Confessor. The inference is obvious.- of the mind; and beyond that point there The wiser system of discipline is that is an infinite field for wandering or for diswhich guards against the more probable covery. Let casuists define and distindanger-which protects the simple Chris-guish as they will, the subtle infidelity of tian from being deluded by others, and the human heart will extract doubt and

heresy from their most skilful definitions. I sons, not grossly ignorant or bitterly preLet Confessors probe the consciences of judiced, have ever denied the authority of their penitents as they may, there are re- the Bible; and that fewer still have doubtcesses which their penetration cannot ex-ed its obvious interpretation upon any maplore, nor their counsels enlighten. It is, terial point. The Catholic, on the other in short, impossible for one man to em- hand, receives the same great truths from brace another's belief in its full perfection, a Church which he believes infallible. Be or comprehend another's error in its full it so, but why does he believe in her infalliperil. bility? Has he no better reason than that he happened to be born and educated within her pale? There is but one answer. He believes because his reason is satisfied. He believes because he has applied to the evidence of Papal authority the same test which the Protestant is so severely blamed for applying to the text of the Bible. His faith, like that of the Protestant, is more or less firm according to the strength of his rational conviction. Like the Protestant, he may be firm, or wavering, or lukewarm, in his religious opinions; and, like the Protestant, he may be betrayed into unbelief by fear, interest, or delusion.

But let us suppose these preliminary difficulties surmounted, and the authority of the Roman Catholic Church admitted: still it may well strike the proselyte as strange, that the difference in faith, or rather the additional articles of faith, which she teaches, should be thought to justify such high pretensions and such rigid intolerance. He will be surprised to find that the hopes and the duties of the true believer, and the heretic, are practically the same; and that the exclusive privileges of the Church consist in pronouncing upon mysteries which no human being is called on to explain, and in ordaining ceremonies which, whether Let us see how the attempted distinction beneficial or not, are certainly but of sec- looks when applied to the ordinary exerci ondary importance. Catholic ingenuity has ses of the understanding. One mathematiprovided an answer, such as it is, to these cal student believes that the square of the complaints. It is not, we are told, because hypothenuse is equal to the squares of the he is authorized to recognise a miracle in sides inclosing the right angle, because the Eucharist, or to worship saints, or to he has read Euclid's forty-seventh proposipray for the souls of the departed, that the tion. Another, wholly ignorant of geomeCatholic is superior to the Protestant. It try, believes the same upon the statement is from the nature of his belief. His faith of his tutor. Both are perfectly reasona. is grounded upon the authority of an in-ble, and may be equally firm, in their confallible Church, not upon his own uncer-viction. But how absurd to say, that one tain views of Scripture, and therefore it is believes by opinion and the other by faith! firm and undoubting to a degree which no Nothing can be clearer than that the same other Christian can imagine. Catholics effect takes place in the mind of each, "deny entirely that Protestants have any though produced by different processes. faith at all; they have nothing but opinion. One has mastered a demonstration in Eu.. Opinion is the persuasion of man's clid, the other has been instructed by a mind grounded upon probable, though not skilful mathematician who has no motive certain motives... Divine faith, on the for deceiving him. In both cases, reason contrary, is founded on the certain and in- may undo what reason has done. The gefallible word of God, which can never suffer ometrician will abandon his conclusions if change. Protestants often change their he is shown a flaw in his theorem. The opinions, as they see more or less of proba- tyro is of course inaccessible to such reability in their interpretation of the Bible; soning as this; but prove that his informhence they have opinion, not faith."-(Fa-ant knows nothing of geometry, or has an ther Oswald, p. 225. interest in misleading his pupils, and his be

We need not detain our readers by meta-lief is shaken at once. physical definitions of opinion, faith, and So far we have reasoned as if Catholics certainty. Any man of common sense can and Protestants stood on the same ground. perceive the situation of each party. The But we might easily insist upon giving the Protestant possesses a book which he be- superiority to the latter. We might easi lieves to be the genuine work of inspira-ly argue that a chain of historical evition. Much of it, as any reasonable student might expect, is obscure; but he finds there the great outlines of revealed religion defined with all the clearness of which language is capable. He knows that few per

dence, almost every link of which has been questioned by learned and disinterested judges, cannot produce the same effect upon the understanding with a few plain words, written in a Book which almost

every man of worth and sense, during | is? This is peculiarly the case in religion. eighteen centuries, has admitted to possess A rational mind will expect, and even redivine authority. A reasonable man may be brought to believe that he has given too much weight to the testimony of such a Father, or too little to the arguments of such a Reformer; but he can scarcely be persuaded that he does not comprehend his own native language.

quire, some obscurity in a revelation of the secrets of a future state. There is nothing which more distinctly exposes the human origin of false faiths, than their clumsy attempts to influence the imagination by attributing corporal pains and pleasures to spiritual beings. The whips and chains of Tartarus, the houris of Mahomet, and the inexhaustible ale-cups of Valhalla, are rejected by men of sense, principally because they are too familiar and intelligible. And, therefore, religious Protestants do not think themselves justified in denying doctrines otherwise well supported, because they cannot pretend fully to understand them.

Still there is no great and undoubted difference between the belief of the Protestant and that of the Catholic; The former holds fast such doctrines as are distinctly and uniformly laid down in Scripture; but does not think himself bound to explain all obscurities or reconcile all conflicting passages. The latter clings as scrupulously to the use of holy water, and the sign of If Catholics require any thing more than the cross, as to the most solemn truths of this, we are certainly unable to comprereligion. But we cannot see the merit or hend their reasons. We know they are the advantage of this. Suppose that Pro- fond of contrasting their own simplicity testants cannot agree about Church gov- and humility with the intellectual pride of ernment, or that they differ in interpreting the Protestant. But we presume that they the Book of Revelation-what have such scarcely mean to commend the habit of bedoubts to do with the religious or moral lief without examination. We own we duties of a Christian? To us, we acknow- cannot discern the merit of a lucky guess ledge, nothing appears more irrational than upon religious subjects. We always bethe anxious craving after certainty, upon lieved that the ready faith, so much comall religious subjects alike, which Catholics mended by Scripture was the triumph of appear to encourage. We are wholly un- reason in a candid and humble mind, unreable to comprehend their compassion for the sisted by pride, or prejudice, or the delumiserable vacillation of persons who are con- sions of the fancy. We are persuaded that tent to hold different opinions, or no opinion the keenest, the calmest, and the most at all, upon the expediency of liturgies, and purely rational intellect is precisely that surplices, or the mysteries of election, as-which is likely to be most strongly im surance, and final perseverance. They pressed by the evidences of the Christian seem utter strangers to a state of content-religion. We think, in short, that the beed doubt upon speculative questions-to liever in the Bible ought to feel a stronger that disposition of mind, which, even conviction that he is right, than the believ when musing with the deepest interest upon the secrets of religion, resigns the hope of completely resolving them. But this is what a Protestant feels-and feels without a touch of uneasiness or repining-pon most of the points so dogmatically decided by the Church of Rome.

Catholics are accustomed to interpret the assertion of the Right of Private Judgment into a refusal to believe any doctrine which appears mysterious or unintelligible. No error can be more unreasonable. Evidence may establish a fact, without explaining its nature. It would be easy to multiply cases in which no man of sense would hesitate to believe the truth of a proposition which he is unable to comprehend. May not a third man be convinced of the existence of light May not a man believe, upon the assurance of Sir John Herschel, that the earth describes an ellipse round the sun, though he does not know what an ellipse

er in the Koran or the Shastra; and we cannot perceive how he can effect this, while he shrinks from the presumption of exercising his natural faculties on the subject.

Still, it does not follow, from what we have said, that no man is responsible for his belief. It is true that the natural infirmity of the mind is no more a crime than that of the body. A man that is an infidel purely from the obliquity of his understanding, is as blameless as a Hindoo or a Mussulman; for intellectual inability to comprehend religious truth, is as involuntary as physical inability to hear it. But mental, like bodily infirmity, may be produced by the neglect or the vices of the individual; and in that case he is responsible for the consequences of his own fault and folly. Though belief itself is not an act of the will, yet the acts of the will may directly influence it; and when this is knowingly done, it ceases to be irresponsible. There

is the greatest difference between a belief some two extreme opinions. Nicknames dictated by the unbiased decision of the for moderation have always been common reason, and a belief arising from pampered among zealots. But the assertion that Proprejudices, suppressed scruples, and ne- testantism is the usual or natural road to glected means of information. skepticism, is contradicted by every principle of human nature, and every page of ecclesiastical history.

The misapprehension upon which we have just animadverted, has naturally led Catholics to believe that infidelity is the Every one has seen instances of the consequence of Protestant principles; and principle of excessive reaction-of the that, if all Protestants are not infidels, it is tendency which leads men to mistake reonly because they shrink from following up verse of wrong for right. It is the nature their own reasoning. This opinion is ex- of weak and passionate minds to fly from pressed, in the work before us, by a one error into that which is diametrically French Deist. "No sooner," says this phi- opposed to it. But who ever saw such a losopher, "do we take leave of Notre- change take place gradually, or by meaDame, than we seek refuge in the temple sured intervals? We know that there is no of reason and universal philosophy. No rebel so desperate as a slave outwearied by half-way house can for a moment detain tyranny; and no loyalist so submissive as a us in our ardent career. In one word, we Jacobin scared by a Reign of Terror. But see intuitively the final conclusions of we never heard that the subjects of Louis your admirable principles; for, to do you XIV. became moderate Whigs before they justice, we cannot but allow that the true became Anarchists: or that the colleagues principles of philosophy-independence of Robespierre began by turning liberal of thought, and freedom from the tram- Conservatives, and ended by crowning mels of authority-passed from Britain Napoleon. We can understand the feelinto France."-(P. 187.) This is no doubt the true language of a bigot-minded infidel of a weak man, who is ashamed of having believed too much, and is therefore determined to believe nothing at all. But, does not the writer perceive that such a man's "intuitive" views of Protestantism are not to be relied upon? It is perfectly The history of Christianity, in all ages, natural that an apostate Catholic should offers the strongest proof of the comparathink he is carrying out the principles of tive safety of moderate opinions from sudthe Reformation by becoming an atheist; den and violent change. In religion, as in just as Cloots and Marat thought they were politics, slavery has always been the surest carrying out the principles of British liber- precursor of anarchy. Whether we look ty, by instituting "Feasts of Reason" and at the epicurean skepticism of Italy under Revolutionary Tribunals." But a man who Leo, or at the fanatical infidelity of France has never lived but at the Pole or the Equa- before the Revolution, we constantly obtor, is no judge of the merits of a temper- serve the same process-unreasoning faith ate climate. Before we settle that "inde- converted, by a short and easy metamorpendence of thought, and freedom from the phosis, into unreasoning disbelief. trammels of authority," are inconsistent know of no such change in any community with Christianity, let us look at their prac-familiar with the exercise of Private Judg tical consequences. Before we condemn ment. the Protestant religion, let us inquire its effect upon those who are acquainted with it, not, like this Deist, by intuition, but by long and happy experience.

Undoubtedly, Protestantism is, in sober earnest, what he calls it in silly irony-a "half-way house." It is a half-way house between Popery and Deism-between superstition and infidelity-between the weak enthusiasm which accepts without proof, and the weak prejudice which rejects with out examination. We never heard of a sober, rational belief on any disputed subject, which was not a half-way house between

ings which change a despot into an ascetic recluse, or a voluptuary into a cynical misanthrope; but we should have been surprised indeed if Charles had prepared for his Convent by becoming a private noble, or Timon for his Cave by settling in retired lodgings.

We

The truth is, that in the great majority of Protestants, St. Dominic himself could discover no heresy, except that they scruple to profess any decided faith on points which are neither distinctly revealed nor essential to religious practice. They differ from the Catholic, not so much by positively denying what he believes, as by not presuming to enforce it as undoubted truth. They do not condemn the faith of the Papal Church, even on most points where they consider it most improbable. They condemn the presumption with which, on her own authority alone, she has declared that