CH&P. II.] SCaZPT?7aE. �mains the rime; if a man take8 a ? rob, and gives a.?'?b? s2?re, this is not the fault of the rule. And while the Bible or Protestant rule is easy of application, the case is different with the Roman Catholic rule. which includes the Bible, Apocrypha, unwritten traditions, the unanimous consent of the fathers, the interpretations of an infallible judge, which has not spoken for near three hundred years, and whose writings make a library in a dead language, the Missal, and Br5viary, &c. Now when the priest takes Ab rub, comprising about one hun- dred and thirty-five volumes folio, in two dead languages, and interprets them pr?t?t?iy, that is, he must do it Ais?/.?'; and al?er interpreting the Bible, he must then proceed to the other parts of his rule, and that, too, without being infallible. ]?ow every one must see that the Protestant interpreter has the decided advantage of the priest; and the asst, med infallibility ot ? the Church of Rome is worth nothing, union every bishop and priest were also infallible. Roman Catholics themselves are compelled, when they would attempt 80her interpretation, to have recourse to legitimate private interpretation, or, in other words, to an interpretation founded on the laws which regulate language. We have an example ot ? this in the lectures of' Dr. Wiseman on infallibility, published in the Catholic Herald and Ca- tholic Telegraph. Dr. Wiseman is a clergylnfm of ?reat eminence in England, whose lectures receive unbounded commendation t?rom Ro- manists. From the following extract on infallibility it will be seen that he endaavour8 to establish that doctrine precisely in the same manner in which Protestants estal)lish their principles. He is com. menting on our Lord'8 commission: '"It is plain that there must be a certain criterion---? sure way to arrive at a correct knowledge of our $aviour*8 meaning; and I know not what rule can be better proposed than the obvious one on every other occasion, that i8, to analyze and weigh the si?uification of each portion of the sentence to arrive at the meaning ot ? me words; and thus, by reconstructing the sentence, with the intelligence of all its Parts, see what is the me?_n_Jng intended b)- him who spoke..And for this purlx)se we can have no better guide than the Holy Scriptures themselves. For if we discover what is the mean- ing of any word by perusing the various passages in which it occurs, so as to be in any way applicable to the interpretation ot ? the one under examination, every one w?!! agree that we have chosen the most satis- faL?ry and ?!aiuly true method of settling the sense intended by our �We nave a twofold investigation to make: first, with the aid of. other passages to ascertain the exact meaning of the phrase8 in them* selves, and then to see in what relation they stand together, or, in other words, what is the extent of' the commission which they imply." Here the doctor adduces a passage of Scripture to prove the church infallible. And he arrives at this mestning, not by church authority, but by private interpretation. He says: "It is plain that there must be a certain criterion--a sure way to arrive at a correct knowledge of our Saviour*8 meaning.*' What 8hall we now think ot ? all that has been said and written against pr/?f ?erft?m ? Dr. Wiseman asserts that it /?s a ? eye, r/os, a ?fre uxry; and if it is not, he know8 of no better t?tle. Is he infallible in his conclusion ? If not, infaliibility is founded on fallibility. If what he says is true, an important principle ot ? Pro- ieotantism is established. And if he can prove the doctrine of infalli- ' I
�
