"The church, at the very worst, is only fallible, and therefore, at the very worst, is as good as you at the very best, for at the very best you are not infallible. Consequently, your allegations of what is the word of God can never be a sufficient motive for setting aside hers. Nothing, then, which you can adduce from the Scriptures, even conceding you all the right to appeal to them you claim, can be sufficient to invalidate her title. As she, at worst, stands on as high ground as you can even at best, her simple declaration that the word of God is in her favor is as good as any declarations you can make to the contrary. The proof, then, which you offered to introduce, would have availed you nothing, even if you had been permitted to introduce it."

"I do not admit that. I offered to prove, and I am able to prove, from the Holy Scriptures, that our Lord founded no such church as the Romish."

"It is certain that you can introduce no passage of Scripture which expressly, in so many words, declares that our Lord founded no such church. If, then, you can prove it from the Scriptures at all, you can prove it only by means of the interpretations you put upon the sacred text. But, at any rate, and on any conceivable hypothesis, the church has as much right to interpret the sacred text as you have, and her interpretations have, to say the least, as high authority as, granting you all you ask, yours can have. But she interprets the word in her favor, and, according to her interpretations of the word, it is clear and undeniable that it is in her favor, and that our Lord did found such a church as she claims to be. Since, then, your interpretations can never be a sufficient motive for setting aside hers, for they at best can be no better than hers at worst, it follows necessarily that you can never, under any hypothesis, prove from the Scriptures against her, that our Lord did not found such a church as she assumes to be. All this I could say, even waiving the argument from prescription. But I do not waive that argument. You have conceded that the church was in possession. She is, then, presumptively what she claims to be. Then her interpretations are presumptively the true interpretations, and yours against her presumptively false. For you to say, then, that no such church was ever instituted, is a plain begging of the question, and so is every argument you can construct against her, drawn from the Holy Scriptures."

"But I may disprove the claims of the Romish Church by

proving positively that some other church is the one actually founded by our Lord."

"Unquestionably; but you cannot plead at one and the same time an adverse title, and that no such title was ever issued. If you plead that there was no such church ever instituted, you are debarred from pleading an adverse title; for you plead that the church has no title, because none was ever issued. If none was ever issued, there can be none in an adverse claimant. On the other hand, if you plead an adverse title, you concede, what you have denied, that our Lord did institute such a church as the Catholic Church claims to be; that the title she possesses has been issued and vests somewhere. This changes the whole question. There is no longer any controversy between us as to the fact whether our Lord did or did not found a church in the sense alleged, but simply a question whether it be the Roman Catholic Church or some other."

'Grant that our Lord did found such a church as is pretended, and I believe in the Holy Catholic Church as well as you,-still I deny that it is the Romish Church."

"You join a new issue, then, and plead now, not no title, but an adverse title?"

"Be it so, for the present."

"And what is the adverse claimant you set up against Rome?"

"The church of which, by God's grace, I am an unworthy minister."

"That is to say, the Presbyterian?"

"Yes. The Presbyterian Church is the visible Catholic Church, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation."

"So says the Westminster Confession of Faith. But which Presbyterian church do you mean?"

"I do not understand you."

"There are, you know, brother, quite a number of Presbyterian churches, for instance, in Scotland, the Kirk by law established, the Free Kirk, and the Seceders; in this country, the Old School, the New School, and the Cumberland Presbyterians; in England, the Presbyterian Dissenters, for the most part Unitarian; and on the Continent, the Dutch Reformed, the Reformed German, the Genevan, and the French Huguenots, all virtually Presbyterian churches, and very generally fallen into Socinianism, rationalism, deism, or transcendentalism. Which of these, not to mention several others, is the one you mean?"

"It is not necessary to particularize; I mean the Presbyterian Church in general."

"Do you include even those who have become Socinian, rationalistic, deistical, transcendental?"

"It is to be regretted that in many of the old Presbyterian churches grievous, and, as I hold, damnable, errors have crept in."

"But are those which have lapsed into these damnable errors still integral portions of the Presbyterian Church? Do you claim the English Presbyterians, the Genevan, and French?"

"The church is never free from error, taken as a whole, but there are always in the church a remnant who are faithful, and somewhere in it there is always the pure preaching of the word, as well as the maintenance of the true ordinances of God's house."

"You forget that you have just conceded that our Lord did found such a church as the Roman Catholic claims to be; but the Roman Catholic Church claims to have authority from God to teach, and to teach everywhere, and at all times, one and the same doctrine, free from all admixture of error."

"I do not forget what I have conceded. I say, in the language of the Westminster Confession of Faith, that the purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture. and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth to worship God according to his will."

error.

"But this does not relieve you, for it says positively the purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and Then there is no church not liable to error and corruption. Then, whatever your Presbyterian Church may claim, it does not claim, even as the church, to be able to teach infallibly; therefore does not even claim to be such a church as the Roman Catholic Church claims to be. Consequently she cannot be set up as an adverse claimant. The title she claims is not the title the Catholic Church claims, and therefore, if established, does not necessarily negative hers. If, then, you concede that our Lord did found such a church as the Roman Catholic Church claims to be, you must concede that it is not the Presbyterian."

"Not at all; for does not the Confession say, 'Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth which shall worship God according to his will?""

"True; but this either amounts to nothing, or it contradicts what you have just alleged. If it means that there shall always be on earth a church which teaches God's word infallibly, then it is false to say that the purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; but if it means that the church which worships God according to his will is not free from mixture and error, it amounts to nothing, for it proposes no church claiming to be what the Catholic Church claims to be, since it is undeniable that she claims to teach without the least mixture or error."

"But one may be subject to error, and yet not err in fact. The church is not exempt from the liability to err, but there is always a portion of it which, as a matter of fact, does not

err."

"What prevents it?"

"The grace of God; for God will not suffer the gates of hell wholly to prevail against his church."

"Very well; but is the church, what your Confession calls the visible Catholic Church,' herself always preserved by grace from error? and if so, can she be said to be subject to error?"

this

"The visible Catholic Church consists of all those persons throughout the world who profess the true religion, together with their children. There is always a portion of these who are, though grace, preserved from error; and therefore there is always a church or body of worshippers who worship God according to his will. In some periods the number of these is very small, in others it is large."

"But you do not answer my question. Individuals may err, particular branches of the church may fail; but does the church, the teaching and judging authority of the church, in matters of faith and morals, ever err?"

"Individual members and particular churches may err, but God always preserves some individuals who do not err, who are witnesses for him in the darkest and worst of times. Consequently, the whole church never falls into error."

"But your Confession declares the visible Catholic Church to be a kingdom. Jesus Christ, it says, 'hath erected in this world a kingdom, which is his church.' Now to a kingdom it is essential that there be a supreme authority. There may be provincial and communal governments with local authority, customs, and usages, but they must all be subordinated to one supreme central authority, or else you have not one kingdom, but as many separate kingdoms as you have sepa

rate local governments. The kingdom erected by our Lord is one, not many, and therefore must have somewhere, somehow constituted, a supreme central authority, from which all the subordinate authorities derive their authority, and to which they are responsible. This supreme central authority is, in the case of the church, the church teaching and governing, and is what is specially meant by the church, when speaking of its fallibility or infallibility. Now my question is, whether the church herself, that is, the supreme central authority from which all the particular and local authorities are derived, is subject to error, or by grace rendered infallible."

"I know no such authority as you speak of but that of Jesus Christ himself, who is the head and husband of the faithful, and he of course cannot err."

"You admit that the church is a kingdom?"

"Yes."

"And a kingdom erected in this world?"

"I do."

"And that where there is no supreme central authority there is no kingdom?"

"There must be such authority, but it may be in Jesus Christ, who is the invisible head of the church."

"It is the authority that constitutes the kingdom, not the kingdom the authority for prior to the authority, the kingdom is not. The authority and kingdom must be in the same order. If, then, the kingdom is in the visible order, the authority which makes it a visible kingdom must be in the visible order, and therefore itself be visible. You could not call Great Britain or France a visible kingdom, if one or the other had no visib.e supreme authority The most you could say would je, tnat there is an invisible xingdom in Great Britain or France, not tnat either is itself a visible kingdom. So of the church. If it is a visible kingdom, it must have a supreme visible authority; if not, it is not a visible, but an invisible Kingdom. The individuais might be visible as individuals, but not as members of the church, or subjects of the invisible authority. In such case, the distinction your Confession makes, and which you contend for, between the visible church, and the invisible, would be a distinction without a difference. When, therefore, you tell. me, as you do in your Confession, that the visible church is a kingdom in this world, you necessarily tell me that it has in this world a supreme visible central authority. And in.