which the elder religion enjoyed; so of this among the rest. We have here, however, but bare opposition of argument; and the present is a question not to be settled by abstract reasoning, but by testimony. PHILODOX. The following ordinance of the law of Moses is considered to be decisive for the existence of such a privilege among the Jews." If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates; then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose; and thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: and thou shalt do according to the sentence which they of that place which the Lord shall choose, shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee according to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand nor to the left. And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die; and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.”* You will, perhaps, object that there was great difference of opinion among the Jews as to the persons on whom this authority was conferred; some of their rabbin applying it to the civil magistrates; others to the Sanhedrim; and others, as Josephus, to both these collectively, together with a prophet, when there was one. But this forms no real objection; because, were it even a mere civil grant, it must have been directed to some individual or society. ORTHODOX. If it was a mere civil enactment, the controversy, as to the persons, would not appear unnatural, considering the revolutions and vicissitudes which the Jewish nation underwent; but if it conveyed an ecclesiastical infallibility, it could not have been a subject of dispute, since the succession of the priesthood never failed. In considering the terms of the grant, I cannot admire the acuteness or discretion which derives a claim of doctrinal infallibility from it to the Hebrew Church. The epithets, "matters of con * Deuteronomy, xvii. 8-12. troversy" respecting" blood and blood, stroke and stroke, plea and plea," explain it to be a law, directing, in all difficult litigations, an appeal to a supreme court; and conferring upon that court, not an infallible, but an uncontrollable authority, with the power of the sword. The litigant who pertinaciously disobeyed the supreme tribunal, was to be put to death. It affords, therefore, as cogent a charter for destroying obstinate heretics, as for establishing infallibility; and so in fact it is applied; yea, even in this country, where the popular Romish version of the scriptures explains it to that purpose. And what are the results from such an assumption, but similar to those which attend a like claim on the part of Rome ? If the argument be good, then Jerusalem was pure when drunk with the blood of the prophets; the tiara was unpolluted when it rested on the brow of a Sadducee; the Church unanimous when torn by heresy and schism; nay, it was an infallible sentence which condemned, as a blasphemer, the Incarnate Saviour of mankind; and the Jews, in rejecting the testimony which God bare to his Son, obeyed a tribunal in whom His revealed word had placed inerrancy of decision. PHILODOX. "The law had then run its destined course, and the divine assistance failed the priests in the very act of rejecting the Messiah who was before them." ORTHODOX. What is this but encumbering one difficulty by a greater, and transferring to God the guilt of that awful deed? The law had NOT "run its destined course until after the death of Christ. It was so far from being repealed, that whatever real privileges its rulers possessed, Christ had enjoined submission to but a few days before. Το say that God had promised to them infallibility of decision, and that this was unwittingly withdrawn in the most solemn action of its exercise; what more can be said to justify their horrid sentence, and vindicate those who acquiesced in its justice? This is, therefore, a barely-concealed acquiescence in the opinion of Hosius, and others of their communion, who daringly avow that the condemnation of our Lord was "just and true". But in fact the Jews have not discovered for themselves so specious a justification as the Romish comment on their law affords. The argument for human infallibility veils every enormity, and vindicates every corruption: as in the case before us, it canonizes the traditions by which the Jews had "made the commands of God of none effect"; and washes away the guilt of that righteous blood, by the shedding of which the measure of their enormities was consummated.-Not only, therefore, is analogy found wanting; but far more explicit evidence will be required to establish the existence of infallibility in the Christian Church. PHILODOX. The following is the first passage of the New Testament quoted to prove unerring guidance in the Church :-"If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. Verily I Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."* ORTHODOX. I perceive not, what this has to do with infal *St. Matthew, xviii. 15, 16. 18. с |