of their unity. But while the love of truth compelled the Reformers to expose themselves to the insults and raillery of their mortal enemies, by breaking into parties upon the more abstruse points of divinity; not even a doubt has disturbed their unanimity as to the insufficiency of the title to divine supremacy, by which Rome commands intellectual homage. That, indeed, was the only point of controversy which common sense could decide; and the renunciation of all the worldly advantages to which the Roman church invited the Reformers, had left their judgment unbiassed. Other disputes in divinity must be settled by a long, difficult, and laborious process of inquiry; but a privilege is a matter of fact which, if not evidently proved, becomes a nonentity. Now, the peculiar privilege claimed by Rome, essentially precludes doubtful proofs of its existence. A doubtful gift from God with a view to remove doubt, is a mockery of his wisdom. If the common sense of many learned and unbiassed minds is found to agree in denying that the Scripture passages alleged by Rome, in favour of her miraculous infallibility, contain a clear promise of that

gift, or describe in whom, and how it was to exist after the decease of the apostles; the pretensions of the Pope and his church must be visionary. The negative proof, in such cases, the absence of a clear title-has the strength of demonstration. Nothing can weaken its force upon a candid mind, but the very common habit of starting away from newly discovered truth in fear of its consequences, which we have previously condemned.

I am aware that, unable as you must be to find a direct and sufficient answer to this argument, and inclined to admit its truth, as an honest mind will make you; yet a crowd of such consequences will deter you from the path into which reason is ready to lead you.-A church subject to error and division!-You shrink from such an inference, without remarking that the preconceived and unproved necessity of having an infallible church, is the true and only source of that illogical process, by which you have endeavoured to establish the certain existence of infallibility, upon the uncertain sense of a few words of the Gospel.

LETTER IV.

A specimen of the unity exhibited by Rome. Roman Catholic distinction between infallibility in doctrine, and liability to misconduct. Consequences of this distinction. Roman Catholic unity and invariableness of Faith, a delusion. Scriptural unity of Faith.

"So long since as the council of Vienne (I quote the words of your great champion Bossuet, translated by your apologist Mr. Butler*) a great prelate, commissioned by the Pope to prepare matters to be treated upon, laid it down for a groundwork to the whole assembly, that they ought to reform the church in the head and members. The great schism which happened soon after, made this saying current, not among particular doctors only, as Gersen, Peter d'Ailly, and other great men of those times, but in councils too; and nothing was more frequently repeated in those of Pisa and Constance. What happened in the council of Basil, where a reformation was unfor

* Book of the Roman Catholic Church, p. 156, 1st ed.

tunately eluded, and the church re-involved in new divisions, is well known." Such is the picture of the Roman Catholic church at the beginning of the fifteenth century, drawn by the most able as well as cautious of her divines. The distinct mention of the unfortunate cause which prevented the proposed Reformation, would have given more colour and individuality to the picture. It was, in fact, a revival of the great schism, which for fifty years had lately kept the Roman Catholic church divided between two or three Popes, who at one and the same time, claimed the prerogative of vicars of Christ: it was a fierce contest between the council of Constance and Eugenius IV., the Pope who had convened it, and whom the assembled bishops wished to reform: it was a sentence of excommunication issued by the council against Eugenius: it was a rival council convoked at Ferrara by the excommunicated Pope, where he employed the same arms against the fathers assembled at Basil: it was the deposition of Eugenius and the installation of Felix V. by the offended council: it was, in fine, the triumph of Rome against the spirit which

ノ

had attempted to execute the work, of which

66

66

great prelates," particular doctors," and "councils too," spoke so frequently, as to establish it into a "current saying," that the church needed reform in head and members. The head, unwilling to be reformed, imprecated the curse of Heaven upon the members; and the members finding that head incurable, chose for themselves another, when they had duly devoted the refractory one to the unquenchable fire. Such are the "wellknown" events which took place in "the council of Basil, where a reformation was unfortunately eluded, and the church re-involved in new divisions."

And now, I will ask, is this the unity, the harmony, without which your writers contend that the church of Christ cannot exist? Is it thus that the necessity of your interpretation of the Scripture passages, on which the system of infallibility has been erected, is sanctioned by experience? Can you still close your eyes against the demonstration contained in my preceding letter, because variations and dissent are in the train of its consequences?