where uncertainty had ripened into knowledge, and hope yielded its kingdom to faith.'1

Such is Dr. Wiseman's argument, and it both deserves and invites a reply. Two objections to the conclusion which Dr. Wiseman seeks to draw from the premises he lays down, naturally present themselves-These are as follows

1. A certain well-defined order of priesthood existed in the Jewish church, and it had a single, divinely-appointed head. But nothing can possibly be more distinct, or positive, or beyond the reach of mistake or doubt, than the divine appointment of the family of Levi to the priesthood, and of the family of Aaron to the pontificate. We have, therefore, a right to argue in our turn, that if God had really intended to constitute a second primacy over his whole church, under the New Testament, he would have been as explicit in his commands as he was in the Old. And it is because we find not the least trace of any such appointment, that we demur to the allegation, that the see of Rome was intended to occupy the same place, under the new dispensation, that the high priest occupied under the old. Shew us even a tenth part of the evidence in favour of the supposed successors of St. Peter, that any descendant of Aaron, occupying the office of high priest, could have adduced, and we are loyal subjects of 'the holy see' from that moment.

But instead of any such evidence, all we find in the New Testament tends in an exactly opposite direction. The epistle to the Hebrews, for instance, is devoted to a comparison of the Mosaical dispensa

1 Wiseman. Lecture iv. p. 93, 94.

tion with that which was to follow it. Most unquestionably, therefore, had it been the divine will that the Jewish church and its ecclesiastical system should be followed by a similar constitution, modelled, in all its visible features, upon the first, we should here have found it delineated. Instead of which, we find just the contrary. We find the sacrificing priesthood for ever abolished: "And every priest (under the Levitical priesthood) standeth daily ministering, and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God: From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Heb. x. 11-14.

a

And the high priesthood and headship of the church is again and again declared to be permanently centered, not in the bishops of Rome, but in Christ. "We have a great High Priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God." (iv. 14.) “ THEY truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death; but THIS MAN, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood." (vii. 23, 24.) Dr. Wiseman tells us that we have priesthood and an altar,' in the pope and the mass, of which Aaron and his sacrifices were only typical. But St. Paul not only does not say this,-which, if true, he certainly would have said, but he plainly tells us that our high priest, the head of the gospel dispensation, "is passed into the heavens ;" and that we are not now to look for a succession of priests, as in Aaron and his race, who " were not suffered to continue by reason of death," but to ONE;

"We have such a High Priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens.” (viii. 1.) Nothing, then, can be more complete, than the opposition between the apostle Paul and Dr. WiseBut we pass on to observe,

man.

2. That we must not forget, when the demand made is of implicit submission—that the priests under the Mosaical dispensation, indisputable as was their divine appointment, were frequently found to be but "blind leaders of the blind; nay, were, especially in our Saviour's own times, the most decided and bitter opponents of the truth.

6

Now the demand made upon us by Dr. Wiseman and Dr. Milner, on behalf of him whom they tell us now occupies the place of the High Priest, is of nothing less than implicit submission. The church of Rome, says Dr. Wiseman, is the depository of all truth, and is gifted with an exemption from all liability to err, and has authority to claim from all men, and from all nations, submission to her guidance and instruction.' And this is said, we must again repeat, of a church whose alleged commission bears not the least comparison with that which was indisputably given to Aaron and his successors.

Now if even the successors of Aaron, invested in the clearest manner with the pontificate and all its plenary authority,-if even these fell into the most fearful errors,—what could be expected of those who act under the far less distinct and emphatic authority conveyed in the Saviour's parting words? If the High Priests were not 'gifted with an exemption from all liability to err,' how can we assume that the

'Wiseman. Lecture iv. p. 109.

Popes are so preserved? If that pontiff who received his mitre and his vestments in the immediate presence, and almost by the very hands, so to speak, of God himself, was so far from being thus exempted from error, that even within sight of Mount Sinai he was found assisting the people in an act of idolatry, what ground can there be for assuming that a greater exemption' from error is promised to the priesthood or the pontiff of our own times?

If it is objected that Christ left a special promise to his disciples, just before his ascension, that he would be with them always, even to the end of the world, we reply, that this circumstance constitutes no distinction between the cases, nor does it secure' exemption from error.' We know that God himself was visibly present, in a pillar of a cloud and of fire, with the Israelites in the wilderness, and yet both the priests and the people were continually transgressing against him.

Dr. Wiseman, however, notices this objection, of the errors and transgressions of the Jewish priesthood and people, thus: But you will say, with all the precautions which his providence took to secure the safe transmission of his promises, see how fearfully they of old did fall from him, and forget all that he had taught them; and shall be then be supposed to have retained the same imperfect institutions now, which failed him so sadly then? Now far from there being any objection in this to what I have hitherto said, it seems to me rather a confirmation thereof. Much falling off there often was-a total loss never.'

6

What the Dr. means by saying a total loss never,' we cannot divine. Our Lord's own words to the Jews were, "The kingdom of God shall be taken from

you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." Matt. xxi. 43. And so it was in the end. But the point we wish to insist upon is this:-To establish the decisions of the Romish church as the rule of faith, it is necessary that its advocates should assume, as Dr. Wiseman, we have seen, does assume, -that that church is the depository of all truth, and is gifted with an exemption from all liability to err.' Now, will any one say, that the two or three sentences in the gospels, on which Dr. Wiseman affects to rely, confer on the successors of St. Peter and of the apostles, greater honours, immunities, and privileges than were bestowed upon Aaron and his successors in the priesthood? Surely not! The Jew, then, under his dispensation, eighteen hundred years ago, might as reasonably believe and contend, that his spiritual guides, who "sat in Moses' seat," were exempted from all liability to err," as the Papists can now claim the same exemption for the pope or the clergy of Rome: This is clear.

66

We ask, then, where was their 'exemption from error,' when they became "the betrayers and murderers of the Just One," when they "killed the Prince of Life," when they "rejected the stone which God appointed as the head of the corner,”when they "slew and hanged on a tree, him whom God had exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance unto Israel, and forgiveness of sins?"

This question must be answered, or Dr. Wiseman's argument recoils upon himself, with tremendous force. The analogy is selected and insisted on by himself. He alleges the case of the Jews as exhibiting an outline and leading scheme of God's plan with the Christian church; and the authority and