will find many passages that assert the Son's equality with the Father, in just as positive terms as this text asserts his inferiority. There are many passages which assert his Deity, and there are many passages that assert his humanity. Is not then the most legitimate mode of interpretation that which applies all texts that speak of inferiority to his human nature, and all texts that speak of equality to his divine? If this method be not adopted, we must positively sacrifice altogether either the texts on the side of his equality, or on that of his inferiority, whereas by it we preserve both in perfect harmony. The Unitarian is compelled to fritter and explain away all the former,-the Trinitarian admits and contends for the strength and application of both former and latter. On this principle there is no difficulty in the passage, "My Father is greater than I." Christ spoke of himself here in his human nature, while in other places he contended for his equality with the Father. He was therefore "equal to the Father as touching his Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood." Here is the substance of the solution I should give to this supposed difficulty; and however unwilling the Unitarian might sometimes be to receive it, I am persuaded it would do much more to satisfy him than the exertion, on the part of the Church of Rome, of an authority which he disbelieves and disregards. To what I have thus stated, let me add, by way of corroboration, that Hilary, in the 4th century, wrote 12 books on the Trinity, and in those books he proved the Deity of Christ simply from texts of Scripture. He referred not to the authority of the Church, but to Scripture, as the reason for believing the doctrine, and he answered the very objection started on the other side, precisely in the way that I have now answered it.

With reference to the passages from the 9th and 10th of Acts, my friend has answered them fully; and I may state, moreover, that, even if Mr. Macdonnell were substantially correct in his assertion that Peter was the instructor of Cornelius, for the purpose of leading him into an acknowledgment of the very first principles of true religion, this would prove nothing against us, inasmuch as I before asserted that the rule of faith, during the personal ministry of the Apostles, was the Old Testament Scriptures, together with their oral teaching. I added, however (and gave proofs on the subject), that, before they passed from the stage of life, they committed the substantial and neces

sary truths of this oral teaching to writing, that it, with the Old Testament, might form the rule for future generations.

Mr. Macdonnell referred to several texts, and to the conduct of parents, ministers, &c.; as if he wanted to shew that we were inconsistent in holding the Bible to be the only rule of faith, while we gave instructions, and used catechisms, and so forth. There is, however, no inconsistency here at all. We certainly do not deny the value and importance of instruction; nay, we contend for it constantly but it is one thing that ministers, parents, and catechisms should be made the means of calling the attention of individuals to the truths which are in Scripture, or even of commenting on those truths: and it is quite a different thing that they should constitute the rule itself. They are only the means to direct to the rule, -while the Bible is still the standard of appeal.

We were inconsistent also, it was said, in holding the 39 Articles, if we believe the Bible to be the sole rule of faith. I am sure Mr. Macdonnell must know that we do not hold the 39 Articles as a rule of faith. He ought to distinguish between a rule, and a confession, of faith. We hold the Bible to be the rule, and the 39 Articles we regard as the expression, of our belief. The difference between the two things is quite manifest.

I come now to the observations which Mr. Brown has made. He says that he should not have objected to my having opposed the Roman Catholic rule, if I had not almost altogether confined myself to it. I appeal to those whom I address, whether I have done as my opponent says, or whether I have not sought to establish, by a long list of Scripture texts (only two of which have yet been noticed), the authority and sufficiency of the Protestant rule. I ask too, if all my retorts, which have been so much objected to, were not directed rather to prove that the arguments against the Protestant rule (as coming from a member of the Church of Rome) went too far, than immediately and primarily to attack the Roman Catholic rule.

Mr. Brown says, with respect to the passage from the 1st of Corinthians, the 11th chap. and 34th verse," The rest I will set in order when I come"-that I have not shewn that the things of which the Apostle speaks did not regard faith. As I have already commented at large on this passage, I shall content myself here with remarking, that, whether I have shewn what my opponent requires,

or not, I am not strictly under the necessity of doing so. For, in an argument like this, the onus rests on him to prove the affirmative--that they did regard faith—rather than on me to prove the negative-that they did not regard faith.

66

The 20th chap. of St. John, verses 30 and 31, have been once more introduced, and my adversary affirms, that the things which, in the 31st verse, the Evangelist says were written," refer to the miracles which had been previously recorded. Without occupying my time on this point, it is quite sufficient for me to observe, that he has not proved this. He has merely asserted it on the individual testimony of one who, though a Protestant, was not infallible

-I mean Dr. Clarke. I enter not into the question whether the Doctor was right or wrong in his opinion, but I say that Mr. Brown is under the necessity of proving the point positively before he derives an argument from it.

I am told that I have mistaken the question all along. My opponent says, he does not dispute the fact that the Apostles committed to writing what they before orally delivered; but he tells us the question really is, did they commit to writing all the truths they thus delivered? I grant they may not have done so with respect to every syllable that they taught, but I contend that they did commit to writing all essential truth, and if they omitted any thing, I maintain that the very fact of the omission proves that the thing omitted was not essential. We are told indeed (by a strong figure), relative to what Christ both did and said, that, if all were written, the whole "world would not contain the books which should be written ;"-I marvel then if the Church of Rome has got them all in tradition?

Regarding the Epistle of Jude, when I remarked on the prophecy of Enoch being communicated to him by inspiration, Mr. Brown said that this was a gratuitous assertion. I cannot agree with him in this, because, unless we limit the extent of Divine inspiration, we must suppose that God would communicate to the minds of those, who wrote the different books, certain facts that had occurred, and prophecies that had been delivered in by-gone times, though the memory of them might long since have been forgotten. We are under the necessity of admitting this fact with regard to many things recorded in the historical books.

In my last speech I cited a passage from Bellarmine, in order to show that there was no "unanimous consent" among the Fathers in the interpretation of Scripture.

This passage has been adverted to by my Rev. opponent, and he says, that, in order to establish my point, I ought to have proved that the Fathers were divided upon points of doctrine, and not upon the meaning of texts; for he affirmed that it was only in reference to points of doctrine that the unanimous consent of the Fathers was required. I say, however, that his Church goes farther on this subject than Mr. Brown has asserted. I hold in my hand a document, the authority of which will not be disputed: it is the Creed of Pope Pius the 4th, and I quote from it as follows:

"I also admit the Holy Scriptures according to that sense which our holy mother, the Church, has held, and does hold, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures: nor will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers."

In this article a Roman Catholic makes a profession not merely that he will not receive doctrines except "according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers," but that he will not interpret Scripture except in the same way. I should like, therefore, to hear where this unanimous consent is to be found? I have given a remarkable instance of the want of it. I have shown you that the Fathers are far from unanimous on one of the most important texts on which several of the most distinguished divines of the Church of Rome found the doctrine of Purgatory.

As to the divisions among Roman Catholics, which had been mentioned, Mr. Brown says that none of them apply to matters of faith, but that they are upon points of minor consequence. We were told, however, yesterday, as a matter of great consequence, that Protestants differed on grace and justification; and it is sufficient for my purpose at present to remind you that I yesterday showed that members of the Church of Rome differed on these very points. The two individuals, Soto and Vega, who wrote books on the decrees of the Council of Trent, with reference to those subjects, took diametrically opposite views: so that my adversary's statement regarding Protestants recoils with equal force upon his own Church.

But is it a fact that Roman Catholics do not differ upon other points of importance also? Is not the means of agreement a matter of importance? Now what is the professed means of agreement in the Church of Rome? It is the supposed existence of an infallible authority vested in the Church. I maintain, however, that there is a differ

ence of opinion up to the present day respecting this point; some declare that the authority of a Pope is above that of a Council, and others that the authority of a Council is above that of a Pope. On this subject let us listen to the statement of the eminent Roman Catholic barrister and controversialist, Charles Butler, of whom we have heard much. In his "Book of the Roman Catholic Church," the matter is stated thus, in the 10th Letter, page 122.

"In spiritual concerns, the Transalpine opinions ascribe to the Pope a superiority and controlling power over the whole Church, should she chance to oppose his decrees, and consequently, over a general council, her representative..... They likewise ascribe to the Pope the extraordinary prerogative of personal infallibility, when he undertakes to issue a solemn decision on any point of faith. The Cisalpines affirm, that in spirituals the Pope is subject, in doctrine and discipline, to the Church, and to a general council representing her. ... They affirm, that a general council may, without, and even against the Pope's consent, reform the Church. They deny his personal infallibility, and hold that he may be deposed by the Church, or a general council, for heresy and schism."

Dr. De La Hogue, in his "Treatise on the Church," (which is the class-book at the Roman Catholic College at Maynooth) speaks as follows:

:

"Moreover, the matter stands thus with regard to the article on the respective authority of general councils and the Roman Pontiff, which the Ultra-montanists, (i. e. the Italians) and the French declare to have been defined in a wholly contrary sense, the one party by the Council of Constance, the other by the 5th Council of Lateran. The Ultra-montanists deny the ecumenicity of the Council of Constance in respect of its 4th and 5th sessions, in which the Canons concerning the authority of general councils above the Roman Pontiff were compiled, and restrict the meaning of those canons to the time either of schism or of a doubtful Pope and in truth this was the question on account of which that Council was assembled. The French, on the other hand, deny, and not without strong arguments, the ecumenicity of the Council of Lateran, which was assembled at a very cloudy season, when an unhappy war raged between Julius the 2nd, and the Most Christian King of France, and which only a few bishops could attend, and scarcely any from the provinces of France. Now, in this celebrated controversy between the Ultra-montanists and the French, THE CHURCH HAS THOUGHT FIT TO GIVE NO DECISION (!) as appears from the acts of the Council of Trent, to which we shall refer in our article on the Pope's prerogatives."-Tractat. de Eccles. Autor. L. Æ. Delahogue. Edit. tert. p. 50. And again :

“The Ultra-montane Theologians ascribe infallibility to the Pope, when regarded in this last point of view, and speaking, as they say, ex cathedra, which opinion others, and more particularly the French, oppose."-Id. p. 385.

Here we find, upon the testimony of De La Hogue and Charles Butler, (and I might give you a long chain of additional evidence from different sources of authority on the subject) that Roman Catholics are divided as to the precise seat where infallibility exists. This, be it observed, is a division of the greatest possible moment, because Roman Catholics cannot make a proper use of the alleged in