whatever to the Divine sanction of it. At all events, the contrary is an assumption requiring proof. Nay, further; if it be true, that man’s sight cannot at present endure the light of unveiled truth, then it may be that some sort of technical expression of truth might even be expected in a Divine revelation. GOD manifests Himself “in part,” and “in part” He shrouds Himself from us still. But after all that has been said, there will be some who will rejoin: If this doctrine were of so great an importance, why is there not some much plainer statement about it in Scripture—something, that is, which might put it beyond doubt? It might be worth considering in reply to this, whether such a question does not arise from a complete misapprehension of the nature and design of the Inspired Volume? But, in any case, it is evident that the Socinian, or even the Infidel might easily ask the very same thing. The Scripture testimony to the doctrine of the TRINITY, plain as we think it, is evidently not _so_ plain as to prevent doubts and differences of opinion. Can that be a valid objection against the doctrine of the Succession, which is none whatever against the TRINITY? The Arians of the fourth age would gladly have accepted of any thing in “Scripture-terms,” and pleaded hard for leaving the truth of the TRINITY in a (so called) “Scriptural” vagueness of expression. But the Catholic Church determined otherwise. And Her interpretation of those Scriptures which contain the Apostolical Succession, is quite as uniform and unequivocal as of those which contain the truth of the HOLY TRINITY. Here, while leaving this class of objections also, (raised, like the former, on pure assumptions) we must not omit to remind any who are trying by the aid of such objections to rid themselves of the Catholic truth, that there is, at best, a fearful uncertainty in the course which they are so pursuing—an uncertainty which seems not to have one solid advantage of any kind to recommend it.—But now before terminating our remarks on the manifold objections of men to this truth of GOD, it is important perhaps to make reference to some of the supposed, and the real Consequences of admitting this Apostolical Doctrine. In speaking of these, perhaps, our opponents manifest less knowledge and more unfairness, than with respect to any other of the topics in debate. The utmost pains are often taken to make out, on the ground of our “exclusiveness,” a case of bigotry, superstition, and intolerance. So that there is the more occasion to direct attention to these, which, imaginary as they are, form, nevertheless, the most cogent objections in the popular mind.